This latest terrible situation where the man was gunned down is horrific. Yeah, yeah, we know there are thousands of policemen over the pond who are principled and beyond reproach but time after time we have had incidents about over-reaction. And before someone jumps in about the alleged stealing of a box of cigars we should note that the police gunman did not know about that. Involved in a confrontation between the officer and the man (black as the norm) the man knelt down and raised his hands asking not to be shot. He was shot but more than once even though unarmed. When this spread into a town protest the sheriff department went bananas running about like solders - and just as I said months ago this is an increasing situation in the country.
At least the State Governor showed more wisdom than the local police acting like someone had invaded the nation. No doubt pressed by the White House but none of this should have been needed there or in the other places where we have seen pictures and film of policemen beating up people with a vengeance or shooting like cowboys. In the majority of cases the officer or officers never get done and only oddly. Isn't this way things are going a bit worrying?
Worrying? I found footage of the "alleged" robbery and says there was probably cause to shoot. One source suggested a struggle beforehand. But what you read saw is prolly more like this?
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/turmoil-tear-gas-give-way-hope-ferguson (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/turmoil-tear-gas-give-way-hope-ferguson)
It still says nothing that suggests any overreaction by police reports. Of course it was racially charged. Naturally his daddy wasn't there but his uncle sure had no idea how his nephew could be so caught up in alleged activities. Never mind he stole drug paraphernalia (that's what the cigars are for) in broad daylight and got caught walking down the middle of the road (probably high) like he owned it. No way that man could of struggled with police and tried to run. Of course an armchair quarterback is always out of situational context.
I don't have much to say about this incident; the "news" is, as usual, not trustworthy… So, I'll wait and see before I make up my mind; and, in fact, I may never do so: These things seldom are cut-and-dried.
But I thought I'd pass this (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385485/ferguson-and-unwritten-contract-between-police-and-community-jack-dunphy) along, as a likely to be neglected part of the picture.
Rj, our resident expert on all things American, has spoken. Further discussion is pointless.
Reminds me a bit of the Trayvon Martin case here in Florida last year, except that nobody really saw or knew what happened for sure other than George Z. The travesty was that they made a racial issue out of it when it really wasn't, but I stayed out of that one and I'll do the same now. :knight: :cheers:
The only thing I know "for sure" is that Ferguson is a Near-North suburb of St. Louis. I found that out early today quite by chance, since my job this morning took me South of St. Louis and I needed to know where in Missouri I was going. Washington, MO-- West-Southwest of STL.
This is only going to get worse of course. When angry crowds burn, loot and pillage every business in the area, businesses suddenly have real good reason for not trying to open up there again-- so-- no jobs, amongst other things. Think "Detroit" or certain West and South neighborhoods of Chicago. Some of those neighborhoods are only just now beginning to come back after the rioting in 1968. Burn, loot and pillage-- sounds like a good plan to make your community better.
There's an overwhelming problem in the welfare class; Ignorance and justification by the system. (Yes, the system rj argues isn't there) Not everyone who gets on welfare stays there but there is a sense of entitlement and culture that revolves around people who choose to live off the system. Primarily, have as many kids as possible with as many fathers as possible to maximize free income... The affects on the family unit is astonishing with no easy fix.
You really are so very conceited and rather infantile tt92. Instead of being able to give a valid answer you resort to sniping at me. Anyway there is if we were to follow your stuff about me much to be worried about in the ex-colonies. Anyway open to the issue at hand and not the excuse to avoid the truth.
The reports here in Gt Britain from reputable channels stated that the policeman involved was not aware of the incident in the shop where no weapon was apparently used. Looked more like intimidation from a hulking man against a small shopper. Now as for the killing there was a dispute between the man and the policeman BUT the civilian got down on his knees and put his hands up. That to anyone with any common sense puts him at a disadvantage with an armed policeman does it not? he cannot do anything to the officer. However the policeman shoots him while the bloke is kneeling and NOT ONCE but several times so why was that necessaries??
This was followed up by the police force (barely a couple of dozen sheriff's men) switching to looking like a military unit and that IS becoming a semi-regular thing over the pond. Even when non-violent protesters went over to speak to them they got pionted at by rifles. This same sheriff's people had a sniper rifle and heavier stuff to shhot than normal. Even this small town police force they had military style vehicles and equipment and is part of a general drift by much of the police service becoming more and more military like and act like soldiers rather than police. My undertaking is that the place is overwhelmingly black but there are only 3 black officers.
Now i can understand the sensible American being concerned about these directions but the snidy ones that do appear here fall back on anyone daring to challenge things as beyond the pale. So i have reiterated what the score was and there was no need for a ppoliceman to multi shoot an unarmed man on his knees. I am happy to accept there are tens of thousands of valued policemen over there but there is an increasing keenness on too many forces to adopt a para-military state of affairs. in doing so they could be letting people elsewhere assume the place is so violent and dangerous or instead of actually them going over the damn top. You do have a police problem and instead of dealing with it your mindset is one of yakking out about simply being onto-American and too nationalistic. Try facing the matter instead. On the other hand maybe it is an annoying incident (of many with your police) that makes you weant to avoid such issues? :(
This is one of those things that gets hard to debate. No matter how I look at it, it looks like the Ferguson police sought the worst possible response to the situation and ran with it.
Shooting an unarmed man never "looks good". Hitting the streets in a military presence unlike anything seen outside of Afghanistan-- another bell-ringer. Covering up important information until it's dragged out of them-- another bright move.
I could keep going, the news has been full of it-- but seriously, if they had cloned Barney Fife and staffed the entire police department with them, the Barney Fife clones probably wouldn't have done it this bad.
Somewhere, some official has got to be thinking "This coulda been handled better".
Are you implying that being onto-American is a good thing or a bad thing?
Are you implying that being onto-American is a good thing or a bad thing?
What in tarnation is "onto-American"? Maybe you mean "anti-American" which seems to be RJH's specialty--- he can be as anti-American as he wants, he's still got a thing going for the old British Empire I think, and secretly wishes the glory days could happen once again.
But, in any case: This isn't about pro or anti-American sentiments. This is about ham-handed actions by the Ferguson police department which just made things worse instead of better, if what I hear is any indication.
However the policeman shoots him while the bloke is kneeling and NOT ONCE but several times so why was that necessaries??
I don't buy this. Reports I've read say he was up to 35ft away. And the crime he committed was violent, regardless of the officer's awareness, it sets a precedence for behavior. Odd the other guy who did surrender survived. If you struggle with police, fight to get away or god forbid reach for their gun, you are deemed an immanent threat whether the officer knows why you struggled or not. You can get shot. That makes perfect sense to someone who isn't a convicted criminal. When cops shoot they are trained to fire three or more times... not only once, ever.
Not saying this was the best or only solution. But when you get anyone's adrenaline pumping, especially an officer's, you run the risk of getting shot. Your attempt to make-believe this was an execution by a competent, long serving officer who left a survivor is ridiculous. Media thrives off ignorance like that.
Are you implying that being onto-American is a good thing or a bad thing?
What in tarnation is "onto-American"? Maybe you mean "anti-American" which seems to be RJH's specialty--- he can be as anti-American as he wants, he's still got a thing going for the old British Empire I think, and secretly wishes the glory days could happen once again.
But, in any case: This isn't about pro or anti-American sentiments. This is about ham-handed actions by the Ferguson police department which just made things worse instead of better, if what I hear is any indication.
I was quoting rj. He said something about "onto-American" that probably makes no sense even if he explains what "onto-american" means to him.
This is one of those things that gets hard to debate. No matter how I look at it, it looks like the Ferguson police sought the worst possible response to the situation and ran with it.
No doubt that a bad situation was made worse by a bungling small-town Sheriff's Dept., but eventually this will come down to the question of whether the shooting of Michael Brown was legal. My brother is a lawyer and so we do discuss points of law and not too much personal opinions. Constitutionally, police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances, 1. To protect their life or the life of another innocent party (also know as the "defense-of-life" standard). 2. To prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect has committed a serious violent felony.
The key to both of these legal standards is that it doesn't matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer's "objectively reasonable" belief that there is a threat. Officers can't justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions are good--they have to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively reasonable", given the circumstances and compared to what other police officers might do. Moreover, what's "objectively reasonable" changes as the circumstances of the situation change.
Legally, therefore, when Michael Brown no longer posed a threat, the officer (Darren Wilson), needed to stop shooting. To justify the shooting, Wilson would need to establish that, right up until the last shot was fired, he felt Brown continued to pose a threat to him--whether he actually was or not.
At one point it is alleged that Brown was struggling for officer Wilson's weapon and a shot was fired from within the police cruiser. If so, then at that point lethal force may have been justified, however, that doesn't mean that a few seconds later, when the circumstances changed, that Wilson could still legally use lethal force.
If this goes to trial, it will get very sticky when defense lawyers try to show to a jury (truth or not), what was going through the mind of officer Wilson. And lawyers, by the nature of what they do, are only interested in the truth when it comes to showing that the other side is lying. :knight: :cheers:
Leaving aside tt92's inability to properly address the query and do a suitable dancing act I would thank mjsmsprt40 for his more sensible and appreciated answer. It is okay for closed minds to ignore what is a semi repeated thing on television news and the impression being given. So my thanks to the man from the Windy City and better than ignoring something when it doesn't suit some mindsets.
You just prefer a bias media's mindset. The mindset that is working to spur rioting rather than solutions for finding the truth. The side that wants the drama and is willing to buy into racial tension and the word of a less than reliable party's opinion. These people are always innocent when you ask. Why you are so eager to take the word of a street thug over a trained officer off hearsay only shows how little your opinion differs from hooliganism. Naturally you're commenting on mindsets and you have no idea what they are. The court is what decides and the more ignorance is spread the more the ignorant believe. And the less likely the balance of probability can be weighed accurately.
The shooting that touched this riot off MAY have been justified. Then again, maybe not. After that, though, it sure looks like everybody in Ferguson from the mayor on down to the bum asking for change on the street-corner all took crazy pills. It wasn't until the state police came in on Thursday night that some semblance of sanity began to happen, and that appears not to have lasted.
Here's a clue, assuming anybody from Ferguson is actually reading this: First, if you really want riots one sure way to produce one is to have the police face down the public in full riot gear backed up by military personnel carriers. Even a quiet, hide-in-the-shadows and run-from-a-fight person like me has a touch point where they'll stand and fight back, and this sort of thing will likely bring it out.
Second, to the rioters and looters: If you want to make your community look like a shelled out war zone for the next thirty years, all you have to do is loot businesses and torch things. I guarantee that nobody in his right mind will want to build there again for a long, long time. Insurance tends not to pay for riot damage and losses to looting, so many of the mom-and-pop businesses you're looting and burning are gone for good. I know what I speak of here: 63rd Street East of the Dan Ryan Expressway has looked like---a war took place there-- since the late '60s/early '70s. It's only just now starting to come back, a little at a time. If you want vacant store fronts and vacant lots, just keep up the looting and burning, and you'll have a hellhole in no time. Of course, you won't have any place to buy food, or gas, or anyplace that hires anybody--- but I guess that's not my business
Rj was singing a different tune when his country erupted in rioting over not so different circumstances. As far as I know this is still confined to one district.
How ludicrous can you be ensbb3??
A man kneels in surrender and hands up (it is usual to raise hands isn't it?0 against a police officer with a gun and instead of being arrested and handcuffed he is shot SEVERAL TIMES. Interestingly this particular sherrif's depart in ferguson is not that good at community stuff and too keen to act like soldiers than police officers. My further understanding is that there are only 3 black officers in the town. Anyway I have given you the basic facts. An unarmed "thug" who surrenders is okay for shooting several times? You and t need to improve your common sense when grown up. It will be interesting to see how you justify this shocking action and whioch has been repeated in other places.
As for your attempt to diverge away from the truth and mention Britain may I remind you that the riots you try to use as a cover happened in one of 4 countries that make up Great Britain - England. There were none at all in Wales, Scotland, Ulster. Neither you or your pal have explained why it is okay in your nation to gun down people who surrender and usually by several bullets. Shoudl be interesting. As I said, mjsmsprt40 is a bit more sensible than you two nut jobs. Explanation please.......
My further understanding is that there are only 3 black officers in the town.
Race isn't a qualification. You keep showing your ignorance. At best this is about class culture. (Do I need to explain why there are no 'government assistance' police officers?)
"Witnesses say" isn't evidence when you understand the cultural influence. Hearsay isn't admissible in court, precedence is. The officer was treated for injuries and the suspect had just committed a violent crime. That's called reasonable doubt. You now have to prove "witnesses" aren't lying. Your understanding comes from nothing. News reports of people saying they saw it (now days later) but nothing done to prove it. Early reports read very different. You are caught up in the idiotic media's attempt to play both sides for a story. I'm saying there isn't just the side you want to believe. Nor is it beneficial to proceed with tossing fuel on this fire. Of course you can't understand that because you want to believe America is out of control. Which is why you don't like the, really, pointless comparison I made. (Tho, this is confined to a suburb of one city ;) ) Like all those rioters, you're letting the fact you wanna believe race is an issue skew your simple minded emotions into taking a side.
The officer's actions are to be judged by giving due process. Not sitting on your ass watching the telly.
he is shot SEVERAL TIMES.
To add to what you can't understand:
This only bolsters the case that the officer was under duress. An unarmed and handcuffed man at point-blank range requires one bullet. They are trained to fire multiple rounds at a threat then gauge the threat level from there.
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYNIH-hm_RA[/VIDEO]
What do you think?
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTUqOBJsRdg[/VIDEO]
What do you think?
What do you think?
Is he retarded? It isn't the Democrats or Republicans that caused this. If they voted for Republicans, the same thing would have happened.
The governor of Missouri is a Democrat, and following the logic the whole state of Missouri should be in flames right now. It isn't. The problem is in one suburb of St Louis.
He uses a couple things most people can agree on 1) You can't count on government 2)Looting is wrong in the hopes of getting people to agree to his rant. It's like the old trick in telephone sales, get the customer to agree to a couple things to make it harder to say "no" to closing the sale. The trouble is that only works if the customer simple-minded. He can't close the sale for me that this is somehow caused by Ferguson having a Democratic mayor. There are numerous economic and social factors at play.
Than there's the reason for the shooting. The autopsy showed that he was shot at least six times:
[img=http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/18/us/SUB-JP-BROWN-2/SUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg [/url]
Right now there doesn't seem to be an agree about why. What we've heard from witnesses would seem to indicate the shooting was unnecessary, but we haven't heard Officer Wilson's side. If he wanted to murder a young, black man like some claim; a single shot to the head would have sufficed. That being the case, why the shots to the arm? There is a possibility that he was trying to wound Brown to subdue him before resorting to killing shots.
He uses a couple things most people can agree on 1) You can't count on government 2)Looting is wrong in the hopes of getting people to agree to his rant. It's like the old trick in telephone sales, get the customer to agree to a couple things to make it harder to say "no" to closing the sale. The trouble is that only works if the customer simple-minded. He can't close the sale for me that this is somehow caused by Ferguson having a Democratic mayor. There are numerous economic and social factors at play.
Than there's the reason for the shooting. The autopsy showed that he was shot at least six times:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2014%2F08%2F18%2Fus%2FSUB-JP-BROWN-2%2FSUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg&hash=f28810afd755fc4cdddc6f7ad478f6a4" rel="cached" data-hash="f28810afd755fc4cdddc6f7ad478f6a4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/18/us/SUB-JP-BROWN-2/SUB-JP-BROWN-2-master495.jpg)
Right now there doesn't seem to be an agree about why. What we've heard from witnesses would seem to indicate the shooting was unnecessary, but we haven't heard Officer Wilson's side. If he wanted to murder a young, black man like some claim; a single shot to the head would have sufficed. That being the case, why the shots to the arm? There is a possibility that he was trying to wound Brown to subdue him before resorting to killing shots.
.....It isn't the Democrats or Republicans that caused this......
Really??
If not directly, then indirectly.
If the democrats set the table, supply all the eats, guess who/what overwhelmingly comes to dinner?
<hint> Those that want lotsa fee stuff, criminals who thrive on lax liberal law enforcement policy, & an overall culture of social resentment.
Care to refute the historical results of democrat big city rule?
<2008>
Why is it that every Democratic run city has the highest crime rates??
For example, Detroit, whose mayor has been indicted on felony charges, hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961. Buffalo has been even more stubborn. It started putting a Democrat in office back in 1954, and it hasn't stopped since.
Unfortunately, those two cities may be alone at the top of the poverty rate list, but they're not alone in their love for Democrats. Cincinnati, Ohio (third on the poverty rate list), hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1984. Cleveland, Ohio (fourth on the list), has been led by a Democrat since 1989. St. Louis, Missouri (sixth), hasn't had a Republican since 1949, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (eighth), since 1908, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (ninth), since 1952 and Newark, New Jersey (10th), since 1907.
The only two cities in the top 10 that I didn't mention (Miami, Florida, and El Paso, Texas) haven't had Republicans in office either -- just Democrats, independents or nonpartisans.
Over the past 50 years, the eight cities listed above have had Republican leadership for a combined 36 years. The rest of the time -- a combined 364 years -- they've been led by Democrats.
Five of the 10 cities with the highest poverty rates (Detroit, Buffalo, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark) have had a Democratic stranglehold since at least 1961: more than 45 years. Two of the cities (Milwaukee and Newark) have been electing Democrats since the first Model T rolled off the assembly line in 1908.
Two cities, 100 years, all Democrats.
If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, the asylums in those cities must be as full as the soup kitchens.............continued
Some of the more red neck answers here border on the disgusting.
Instead of slagging me off for what the television "says" the immutable fact that an unarmed man on his knees got 6 damn bullets pumped into him is less important than the ranting off into an un-principled stance. It is also obvious but not to at least two here that local people and the police have a very wide chasm and not eased by the Sherrie whimpering on about the policeman having a good record. Well that man hasn't got it now constantly pumping bullets into the victim. It doesn't take the media to show there is something very wrong here. Instead I get this baloney because i challenge things that I am entitled to challenge. How in a sensible review excuses are made for the 6 bullets pumped into the man are beyond common sense.
As for wider con-nations the unfortunate and gradual state of so much of the police service becoming more militarised should be a deep concern for thinking people. There is also a wider problem with the number of such events with vicious beating ups, fusillades of shots, etc. The militarising of the police is even more in your face when you consider that each year the Pentagon allocates just under half a billion dollars to armaments for the police!
Sadly, there is a deepening problem and now a town has to have actual soliders in it. The policeman involved needs to be faced with something having shot the man to bits.
red neck
I'm a hillbilly, if you're wishing to address me with a slur. We've been over that. (also it's: redneck)
I've called your view ignorant. And it is. You've no concern for how much money the media is making covering this in a fashion that gets both sides to watch. But if you're gonna cry I'll leave ya be on this, pops.
As for wider con-nations the unfortunate and gradual state of so much of the police service becoming more militarised should be a deep concern for thinking people. There is also a wider problem with the number of such events with vicious beating ups, fusillades of shots, etc. The militarising of the police is even more in your face when you consider that each year the Pentagon allocates just under half a billion dollars to armaments for the police!
This point was brought up by the media days ago. To an extent I can agree and if this conversation was actually over police psychology I'd raise points here. But I'd also compare it to British police running, turning areas over to hooligans, and wonder if that didn't have farther reaching consequences.
Instead of slagging me off for what the television "says" the immutable fact that an unarmed man on his knees got 6 damn bullets pumped into him is less important......
Actually, it is less important -- less important to the long term future of Ferguson & similar places.
Him being dead can't & won't be undone.
All the social outcries, the arm flailing, the rioting, the pillaging, & all the mayhem in the world won't bring that dead black boy back from the dead like Lazarus.
How he died, & why he died, need to be delved into, understood, & then in the end people, after deep deliberations, need to come to some realistic conclusions to act upon -- on how to try & avoid this from happening again -- learn from the mistakes, instead of repeating them.
If not, it's bound to happen again, & again, & again........
Actually ensbb3 you are kind of insulting hill billies when one considers the origins of their name. Both you and SmileyFaze show a rather sickening side of America in your attitude to the killing in Ferguson. So he is dead so tough let us get on with life? The man had no weapon the cop knew nothing about the 40 cigars incident and he riddled an unarmed man with 6 bullets? The policeman should be investigated and damn well charged but then as you are becoming more and more of a police state and that big sum dished out by the Pentagon and the attitude of too many officers shows how dangerous the land of heroes is in practice. Why does your country have to take half a billion to give police an army appearance? Things must be worse than i thought. Pathetic. However on the wider stance many Americans will be shocked and disgusted at yet another violent police incident. That you lot attach no importance to the over the top killing does your side any credit and police more and more like soldiers your future is not a rosy one. I dare say that the black man gunned down could have been arrested for stealing 40 cigars but killing an unarmed black man is fine and dandy. What a hellhole attitude.
I see why the tv is your primary source of information... You ain't good with reading. Do show me where I said it's no big deal someone died? I've spoke to why he might of been perceived as a threat. You're the one picking sides, so you can America bash and nothing else.
Perhaps you can put your orange sash on and repeat your concerns for this man?
It's a Howie specialty, that old "Onto-Americanism" ... :)
Care to refute the historical results of democrat big city rule?
You know, I'm not going to argue this with you. I think you must know better then this. Las Vegas continues to be ruled by the Democratic Goodmen "dynasty" and we don't even make the top 100 most dangerous cities, yet Republican cities do (And the Republicans didn't cause that either)
How we'd cover Ferguson if it happened in another country (http://www.vox.com/2014/8/15/6005587/ferguson-satire-another-country-russia-china)How would American media cover the news from Ferguson, Missouri, if it were happening in just about any other country? How would the world respond differently? Here, to borrow a great idea (http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/09/30/potential_government_shutdown_how_would_the_u_s_media_report_on_it_if_it.html) from Slate's Joshua Keating, is a satirical take on the story you might be reading if Ferguson were in, say, Iraq or Pakistan.
FERGUSON — Chinese and Russian officials are warning of a potential humanitarian crisis in the restive American province of Missouri, where ancient communal tensions have boiled over into full-blown violence.
"We must use all means at our disposal to end the violence and restore calm to the region," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in comments to an emergency United Nations Security Council session on the America crisis.
The crisis began a week ago in Ferguson, a remote Missouri village that has been a hotbed of sectarian tension. State security forces shot and killed an unarmed man, which regional analysts say has angered the local population by surfacing deep-seated sectarian grievances. Regime security forces cracked down brutally on largely peaceful protests, worsening the crisis.
America has been roiled by political instability and protests in recent years, which analysts warn can create fertile ground for extremists.
Missouri, far-removed from the glistening capital city of Washington, is ostensibly ruled by a charismatic but troubled official named Jay Nixon, who has appeared unable to successfully intervene and has resisted efforts at mediation from central government officials. Complicating matters, President Obama is himself a member of the minority sect protesting in Ferguson, which is ruled overwhelmingly by members of America's majority "white people" sect.
Analysts who study the opaque American political system, in which all provinces are granted semi-autonomous self-rule, warned that Nixon may seize the opportunity to move against weakened municipal rulers in Ferguson. Missouri's provincial legislature, a traditional "shura council," is dominated by the opposition faction. Though fears of a military coup remain low, it is still unknown how Nixon's allies within the capital will respond should the crisis continue.
Now, international leaders say they fear the crisis could spread.
An unarmed and handcuffed man at point-blank range requires one bullet. They are trained to fire multiple rounds at a threat then gauge the threat level from there.
Symptomatic words.
Symptomatic of a culture where people are seen as targets to be hunt, where people killed are photographed with their killers proudly showing their weapons and smiling over the corpses, where taking a life produces congratulations, where, basically, there's no respect for human life, property considered being above life.
A culture where the police can be executioners, where shoot first and ask later seems to be defensible, a culture made of fear, violence and savagery.
Stop police brutality.
Was George Zimmerman hired by the police of Ferguson?
Hit 6 times, 4 shots in the right arm and 2 shots in the head. Two shots indicating that they were fired from the back.
Strange way to deal with an unarmed young man. However it's not for the first and probably neither for the last time it happens.
A culture where the police can be executioners, where shoot first and ask later seems to be defensible, a culture made of fear, violence and savagery.
Pure propaganda. This statement only wants to see what you want to think. Meaning if the officer is at fault you feel justified in believing the same thing you say he felt. If not, and the officer is acquitted, justice wasn't served.
Strange way to deal with an unarmed young man.
I'm curious. Why is an 'unarmed man' never a threat? At what point does a combination of bad decisions mean yet another bad decision could of been he attacked an officer who then had to use deadly force?
I'm willing to go either way. If the officer is found guilty there'll be no riots. Had this happened in Texas or Arizona I may even be leaning towards excessive deadly force being used. But in St. Louis? It's less likely, but not impossible. There seems to be a deep misunderstanding of what officers go through on a daily basis and why force would be used.
To change focus a bit to what is considered peaceful and nonresistant...
The crowd was given due warning to clear the streets. (peaceful protest isn't blocking off a neighborhood after 9pm) They are suiting up for what they know is coming and calling it peaceful because they are willing to take police's attempts to reclaim the streets. All the man with the camera wants to do is talk about what he believes is wrong without any understanding why the police would come reclaim a street after dark, when looting was the last consequence. The man then says they have no where to go... Dispersing as requested was never an option apparently.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1SKC6dK7o[/video]
Listen to the man @6:00mins in. He's not talking about the police.
A culture where the police can be executioners, where shoot first and ask later seems to be defensible, a culture made of fear, violence and savagery.
Pure propaganda. This statement only wants to see what you want to think. Meaning if the officer is at fault you feel justified in believing the same thing you say he felt. If not, and the officer is acquitted, justice wasn't served.
Pure propaganda it's what you're doing. The most incredible justification I ever seen, since police will be always criticized then let them keep on killing people...
Anyway, American citizens being beaten, tortured or killed by American police with or without the applause of the American public, it's not my problem.
I believe in self determination so let Americans do whatever they like.
There will be many other killings to satisfy everybody.
Since I like to discuss with you, I hope you don't turn into a mere cromagnon-like-police decision if you live or die.
Mr police don't shoot this one, I still have to discuss with him.
Mr police don't shoot this one, I still have to discuss with him.
I'm not going to commit crime, fight police or block any public streets... You'll have me around for some time yet. ;)
To change focus a bit to what is considered peaceful and nonresistant...
One from abroad might still wonder - how comes that a peaceful little town turns over night into a plundering community transforming the place into a war zone.
Wasn't it triggered by something or is it just simply coincidence? Bad Karma?
One from abroad might still wonder - how comes that a peaceful little town turns over night into a plundering community transforming the place into a war zone.
Wasn't it triggered by something or is it just simply coincidence? Bad Karma?
Ah, now we're getting into an earlier statement I made on culture. I'm not saying they don't have a right to protest. Only this isn't how it's done. (Not what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr would of condoned either, and may be he had more cause to feel resentment.) Listen to the crowd's comments in the video for a glimpse into their mindset. "Fuck you pigs go home!"? (Pot vs Kettle) Wonder why they are so resistant to proper procedure? How many of them pay taxes and
feel their interests are represented? How justified is that feeling?
How many of them pay taxes
Paying taxes is not a condition for citizenship.
Just to remember you that while you are still alive. :)
Paying taxes is not a condition for citizenship.
Of course not. They get taken care of because they are citizens. This breeds entitlement to block a road after dark their tax money didn't pay for, though. The way the system is setup even hurts the family unit and causes these people to not understand why when something isn't just given to them because they want it they can't just take it. Officer's charged and paid by tax payers now have to regain the public street. If that was one man with a sign and a point it would be easy to say they should remove him. But in a crowd there is a threat of violence. (After all they did holler back they could do that too and throw back flares.) Mob rule gains more entitlement, justified or not. The law and procedures established long before this say what police can and will do. Why is that not considered? This same protest can be legal if they took the time to do it right.
The law and procedures established long before this say what police can and will do. Why is that not considered? This same protest can be legal if they took the time to do it right.
That mob is rioting and rioting it's not characterized by doing the "legal thing", is it?
But they put you a problem, the more you treat them as a riot, the more they present themselves victimized... that's the obvious procedure. The only way of solving it it's by doing what should have been already done in the first place, a severe attitude towards the killing. Then, promise things, anything, you are not going to accomplish it anyway....
If not, it will be exploited until the end of days.
Racial problems are very complicated and the USA sits on a racial barrel of powder.
I'm giving a slight nod to what they think it is. I will ask you to consider I'm almost as detached from this as you. Except for how the national guard is deployed there's little I and like minded people in my state can do. Even then iirc a governor had limited control of them in his state. I'll agree there could of been a better response or even action taken by the officer, from where I'm sitting. But I'm sitting outside of it. My concerns are that whatever happens my state learns and acts better.
.......One from abroad might still wonder - how comes that a peaceful little town turns over night into a plundering community transforming the place into a war zone.
Wasn't it triggered by something or is it just simply coincidence?
What you're witnessing is an overall culture of social resentment -- a total resentment of all established authority.
It comes about from years of social projects. Projects that once meant well, but have gone way way wrong.
It comes about when people's needs are provided for, by government, for nothing of value in exchange -- year after year.
When those same governments promise
"Change", but they only provide more of the same.
These payments, gifts, & grants by the government aren't actually made to free the people who are receiving them from the burdens of life.
No, it's being done to enslave them, to hold their votes in a death grip, & to fear what they are being told -- told that at any time, the evildoers might come & steal
their entitlements away.
Yes, they feel that they are entitled to all these benefits --- payments --- freebies.
They claim them as theirs.
They
venomously resent the control government puts on them, but still they demand their entitlements -- bought & paid for by their votes.
It doesn't require a dead teen to set things off like this.
All that's needed is
any perceived authority intruding upon them --
telling them what they
must or
must not do, & any act thereafter will provide them all the excuse they need to rise up act the way they are.
Naturally, the more serious the perception, the more provocative the intrusion, the more incendiary the threat, the more explosive the response will be to any governmental authority.
They feel taken for granted -- enslaved -- wrongfully & deceitfully beholden to their governmental masters for what belongs to them -
their perceived entitlements.The
"Main Stream Media", & their own
so called "religious & political leaders", repeatedly tell them that anyone rich is unjust & evil, that banks & business are all unjust & evil, that all authority is unjust & evil, that the white man is unjust & evil .....etc....etc.... day in & day out.... year after year ..... all their lives.
Lies told often enough becomes the truth --- truth in the minds of those being constantly told,
especially when they are weakened by despair & the promises of
"Change" that never comes their way.
No, it doesn't require a dead teen to set things off like this.
As I previously said, all that's needed is
any perceived authority intruding upon them --
telling them what they
must or
must not do, & any act thereafter will provide them all the excuse they need to rise up act the way they are.
In the simplest of terms, it's the voice of an overall
"Culture of Social Resentment", brought on, & perpetuated by, years of socially progressive & liberal governments.
They will reap what they sow.
The chickens have come home to roost..........
What needs to happen is a definite enquiry into the actions of the pole officer concerned as his actions hardly look balanced or reasonable. It also seems that although 50% of the town is back not one Negro is on the town council. On top of that the polce with over 50 officers has only 3 blacks.There are always those who will use any situation for other purposes but basically the two concerns are as follows.
(1) There must be a wider investigation into the officer who fired 6 shots into the man including 2 in the head. This may require ana level above Ferguson in view of the long friction between half the population and it's service.
(2) Why are so many police forces across the nation becoming paramilitary. Heavy weaponry, vehicles like those used in Afghanistan the right to use snipers against unarmed people in a conflict and other hard measures. With so many police departments right across the spectrum including small towns becoming like soldiers it starts to appear like a police state more than anything. That too should be a worry. So everyone needs to know when the officer is going to be officially and properly investigated. Time after time there have been incidents elsewhere wher many policemen get off with what they shouldn't. This does not help a community and is overdue for a review. Officers are not above the law or there to act as if they were it and can do what they like.
The family need to have the dreadful killing in the special circumstances dealt with by the authorities. One can only hope that will prevail.
Maybe we should do it the British way: Cameras on every street corner; take 'em up and lock 'em away without trial whenever we think it's warranted… Parliament will never broach the subject!
And an honest Scotsman is always too dumb to know what's happened.
Why are so many police forces across the nation becoming paramilitary. Heavy weaponry, vehicles like those used in Afghanistan the right to use snipers against unarmed people in a conflict and other hard measures.
You touch the fundamental point, because
populations are considered the enemy at this brave New Order.
Polices
all over the world are getting heavily armed for offering people flowers? to help children to cross the street?
The New Nazism doesn't build concentration camps, it uses the world as a single concentration camp.
What needs to happen is a definite enquiry into the actions of the pole officer concerned as his actions hardly look balanced or reasonable.
I had assumed the family filed a wrongful death lawsuit but all I can find is one from the ACLU.
Maybe we should do it the British way: Cameras on every street corner
I'm a little surprised there isn't dash-cam footage. It is a bit concerning the police have armored vehicles but a simple dash-cam and microphone in the squad car is missing. Plenty of force available to keep the public accountable but none for the officers? A camera or even audio alone would of stopped this from getting out of hand from the jump. If he was attacked and pushed into his squad car where a struggle led to the use of deadly force it would be proven easily that way. Whether or not it was excessive may be disputable if the dash-cam missed the shooting but only to a point. In some jurisdictions a willingness to fight police and even go for their weapon is considered an immanent threat to public safety and deadly force is authorized. Youtube is littered with dash-cam footage of officers handing it better but as the suspect flees more lives get put in danger and it ends sometime later the same way, with the suspect shot.
What needs to happen is a definite enquiry into the actions of the pole officer concerned as his actions hardly look balanced or reasonable.
I had assumed the family filed a wrongful death lawsuit but all I can find is one from the ACLU.
Maybe we should do it the British way: Cameras on every street corner
I'm a little surprised there isn't dash-cam footage. It is a bit concerning the police have armored vehicles but a simple dash-cam and microphone in the squad car is missing. Plenty of force available to keep the public accountable but none for the officers? A camera or even audio alone would of stopped this from getting out of hand from the jump. If he was attacked and pushed into his squad car where a struggle led to the use of deadly force it would be proven easily that way. Whether or not it was excessive may be disputable if the dash-cam missed the shooting but only to a point. In some jurisdictions a willingness to fight police and even go for their weapon is considered an immanent threat to public safety and deadly force is authorized. Youtube is littered with dash-cam footage of officers handing it better but as the suspect flees more lives get put in danger and it ends sometime later the same way, with the suspect shot.
I've recently heard of one better. The policeman wears a "helmet cam" or "visor cam" that sees what the policeman sees. The departments that do this do it for the officer's own protection, in a "he said/she said" incident the helmet cam shows what the officer was facing, and as long as he handles himself professionally the footage would serve to exonerate him in an altercation like the one we have that started this one. As it is, right now the only real defense the officer has is the tendency of the law-abiding public to believe the officer rather than the rioters.
Nice, people even asks for being controlled filmed...
There was a time when photographing or filming required people's authorization...
There was a time when photographing or filming required people's authorization...
That's a bit old fashion but still enforced in some states. In regards to public safety and accountability it's more a no-brainer. The account of the people involved is still very much needed to satisfy law and due process. However, to say a suspect needs to give permission for a law officer to gather evidence, in public, against them is silly. Same goes for citizens, in public, filming officers. Laws have to grow with technology and lots of people have a device in their pocket that can start a video recording within seconds of anything they may later have to say they saw.
Laws have to grow with technology
Laws have to subject to moral codes and nothing else. Filming people without their authorization it's a disrespect for people's dignity no matter what purposes it's supposed to be.
Right were the Indians when believing that photographs destroys the soul. Police photographing you destroys your freedom.
A police that makes people willing to be filmed for their own security it's not a police force but an instrument of terror. As obvious.
The solution it's not to force people to be filmed but to change such abusive police methods.
People have been doctrinized so much that they not realize anymore how deep into this nightmare they are. As usual, good faith and good intentions are what fuels repression. It's for your own security says The Voice....
‘A dozen witnesses’ say Ferguson teen attacked cop before shooting
Multiple witnesses in riot-torn Ferguson, Mo., said that the unarmed black teen killed by a white cop attacked the officer in his patrol car before the teen was shot, according to a new report...............continued
Slowly, the pieces of the puzzle might be coming together.
Too bad this police department doesn't protect it's officers with dash-cam's & the like.
It's my guess that if they did have dash-cams or body-cams all this needless speculation & accusation would have been unnecessary.
Corroborating independent witness statements --- numerous witnesses directly from the affected community ---
would go a long way to recount the
actual facts pertaining to this
unfortunate event,
instead of some of the emotionally charged & imaginative
speculation presented to date.
As a follow-up to my previous post:
Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
According to the well-placed source, Wilson was coming off another case in the neighborhood on Aug. 9 when he ordered Michael Brown and his friend Dorain Johnson to stop walking in the middle of the road because they were obstructing traffic. However, the confrontation quickly escalated into physical violence, the source said..
“They ignored him and the officer started to get out of the car to tell them to move," the source said. "They shoved him right back in, that’s when Michael Brown leans in and starts beating Officer Wilson in the head and the face.
The source claims that there is "solid proof" that there was a struggle between Brown and Wilson for the policeman’s firearm, resulting in the gun going off – although it still remains unclear at this stage who pulled the trigger. Brown started to walk away according to the account, prompting Wilson to draw his gun and order him to freeze. Brown, the source said, raised his hands in the air, and turned around saying, "What, you're going to shoot me?"
At that point, the source told FoxNews.com, the 6 foot, 4 inch, 292-pound Brown charged Wilson, prompting the officer to fire at least six shots at him, including the fatal bullet that penetrated the top of Brown's skull, according to an independent autopsy conducted at the request of Brown's family.
Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket in the fracas, and was left dazed by the initial confrontation, the source said. He is now "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified" that a grand jury, which began hearing evidence on Wednesday, will "make some kind of example out of him," the source said.........continued
As time goes on, I believe more
facts will come to the forefront.
If you were that officer, & this account is corroborated, if you were that officer, who had just been beaten badly, ordered the suspect to
"freeze", & the suspect not only completely ignored that order, but instead turned toward you & then charged you, would you --
as that officer -- feel threatened with grievous bodily harm, & maybe worse? Would you think your life was in danger, especially after being severely beaten by this
6 foot, 4 inch, 292-pound thug (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAdPReAf2_8) once already?
Well, think about that for a few moments. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
Now, what do you think?
If all these accounts were corroborated as fact, might you have fired if you were that officer?
The idea of the policeman wearing a camera has to do with what happens in Internal Affairs when a case like this happens. The cop says he shot in self-defense, a dozen people in the neighborhood say it was cold-blooded murder. Which was it? The camera footage would help a lot to clear that up. That footage could be evidence either for or against the officer involved. Now, if the cop chose not to wear the cam because he knew what he was about to do-- that wouldn't sit well with anybody and would call into question what exactly he did or did not do to defuse the situation. But, for professional police officers who take their oaths seriously, a body-cam could save a lot of trouble when Internal Affairs has to investigate, and when/if the DA has to get involved. For guys who wear the uniform and carry a badge so they can push people around--- we need to get rid of those SOBs anyway. The cameras would sooner or later reveal those guys for what they are.
..........professional police officers who take their oaths seriously, a body-cam could save a lot of trouble when Internal Affairs has to investigate, and when/if the DA has to get involved. For guys who wear the uniform and carry a badge so they can push people around--- we need to get rid of those SOBs anyway. The cameras would sooner or later reveal those guys for what they are.
Agreed! (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-hash="75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)
Right were the Indians when believing that photographs destroys the soul.
Lmao, don't worry. I won't let the white man steal your shadow.
Although, that is my point. Their culture had no experience with such things and beliefs that led to a warped understanding. Just as old fashion folks come from a time where cameras were bulkier and less common. I'm not fond of unscheduled photo-shoots either. In a world where they are more common the next generation will be. And when something they've captured helps solve something that wouldn't of been solved in our time the justification will make itself. Such is the way of things. :)
I just ran across this blog as part of my daily look-see at what other people are writing over by the place I keep my blog these days. This guy is a LEO serving near-- but not in-- Ferguson. Writing about ordinary things you might expect an LEO that takes his oath seriously to write. Read it, and see that not all the police there are vicious thugs-- regardless of what some media and certain Scotsmen want you to think.
http://donofalltrades.com/2014/08/19/meanwhile-just-outside-of-ferguson/ (http://donofalltrades.com/2014/08/19/meanwhile-just-outside-of-ferguson/)
Thanks for the valuable contribution to our understanding about this tragic situation, mjm.
And now shit storm prepares to upgrade to a shit hurricane. Meanwhile just outside of Ferguson, in Saint Louis a man was gunned down by police (http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/20/was-kajieme-powell-really-holding-high-a) (do notice the source, Oakdale.) The police claim he was three to four feet away from them brandishing a knife overhand. The included video of the incident appears to show no such thing. After that, the police handcuffed the corpse. From the narration, the offense was stealing two sodas.
I remember Smileyfaze complaining before about a man with gun in his car getting arrested for it. Like I said at the time, that guy was lucky to get out of the incident alive. The police in some departments are trigger-happy these days. Las Vegas MetroPD are notorious for it.
The police in some departments are trigger-happy these days.
If your brush were just a wee-bit bigger, you could candy-stripe the moon,
Sang… Here (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/st-louis-police-fatally-shoot-man-who-brandished-knife/article_85d27316-a17a-5e0a-b1d6-8a6753e2fcb2.html) is a local newspaper story. Now, let's wait to see what is determined to have happened. (I'm especially interested to hear about the knife…) Of course, you think it was over a couple of sodas,
Sang. :(
Reminiscences from the correspondent of
Die Welt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welt), the well-known rabble-rousing rag and consort of communists (Axel Springer was the German Murdoch).
The day the U.S. police became my enemy (https://medium.com/@monberl/the-day-the-u-s-police-became-my-enemy-81dd63ddb669)
For me this is an entirely new experience. I have been in several conflict zones: I was in civil war regions in Georgia, in Gaza, I illegally entered the Kaliningrad region when the then Soviet Union strictly prohibited access to westerners; I was in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Vietnam and in China; I secretly met dissidents in Cuba. But to end up arrested and roughly treated and snarled at by police and see the actual inside of a prison – for that I had to travel to Ferguson and St. Louis in Missouri in the United States of America. [...]
The numbness in the wrists is gone, and this absurd interlude will certainly trigger no nightmares for me. No one shot at us, no one really brutalized us. But my childlike trust in the police, my belief that – even in the USA, which I have always so passionately defended from their many critics – the police, despite their often harsh and unsympathetic manners, is your friend and helper – that belief is gone.
Wrongful arrest isn't an unheard-of phenomena, but establishment correspondents normally avoid this fate. It is something about something called the freedom of press, and about picking up erudite vipers by their tail.
Of course, you think it was over a couple of sodas, Sang. :(
Powell walked out of the Six Stars Market, at 8701 Riverview, without paying for two energy drinks, and the store owner told him to stop. A few minutes later, Powell came back and took a package of muffins or pastries, Dotson said, adding that the store owner walked out with him and asked him to pay for the items.
My mistake. Energy drinks and muffins. You really don't understand the problem do you? Further, you think I'm automatically siding with Powell. In fact, I'm merely pointing toward another maelstrom with police saying one thing and an eyewitness video showing something completely different.
You really don't understand the problem do you?
An agitated, perhaps drug-addled or otherwise deranged, man said to have a knife moving towards police officers after being told to stop? Yes, that's a problem.
The rest will come out, eventually.
Are you right, that more trouble is likely? Probably. ("Protestors" from California and New York have been among those arrested in Ferguson… "Never let a crisis go to waste!") And unfortunately.
Reminiscences from the correspondent of Die Welt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Welt), the well-known rabble-rousing rag and consort of communists (Axel Springer was the German Murdoch).
Speaking of Axel Springer - one of its corporate principles:
- To support the Transatlantic Alliance, and solidarity with the United States of America in the common values of free nations - which translates: no negative/critical comments are welcomed
Ironically, more than one Axel Springer reporter got arrested and become acquainted with teargas and rubber bullets.
This one (http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/proteste/usa-fergusen-so-wurde-der-bild-reporter-festgenommen-37314152.bild.html) is from BILD.
Reminds me of a saying: A police baton on the skull can cause a greater learning effect than thousand ideological lectures.
It is something about something called the freedom of press
When people overlaps the right to shoot to the right to live, how would they bother with such ethereal things as freedom of press...
Weren't the French so naive and they would had offered a statue of Billy the Kid, not Liberty.
Watch it on the bottom of the Reason article. Very little about it matches the official account: I don't see a knife being held in over-hand fashion and his hands are actually by his side. Powell paces before the police arrive, perhaps he saw them coming. You assume he was deranged or drug-addled, just as the protesters assume the police just shot him in cold blood; as you continue to miss the fire for the smoke. The real crises is not the shooting themselves, but the conditions that led to them and the subsequent protests. What you have here is tinderbox of economic and social problems that's just looking for a spark to set it off. In short, you're thinking way too small.
For curiosity, was the police man arrested?
I ask because here if a police kills someone he's immediately unarmed and arrested because an homicide it's always an homicide being the perpetrator a police or not.
He will be presented to court that decides if the police followed the procedures that allows him, at exceptional circumstances and with no other available solution, to shoot anyone.
For curiosity, was the police man arrested?
In the Nordic countries a policeman who uses his gun on duty gets some time off immediately. You can call it detention. The idea is to help him recover from the shock. The remedy is counselling and some such.
I wouldn't be surprised if the American equivalent were the injection of some legal drugs. In this case it's likely that the policeman has been transferred to a secret location away from the maddened crowd.
Here, there's sure to be an investigation. An officer's gun was discharged in the line of duty, a suspect died in this case under questionable circumstances, Internal Affairs gets involved and investigates and the officer(s) involved are at the least placed on "desk duty" until the matter is cleared up. This is where dash-cams and body-cams come into their own, the cameras allow IA to see what REALLY happened rather than having to separate the officer's word from witnesses (if any) word-- and with video evidence, just maybe get real justice done.
My mistake. Energy drinks and muffins. You really don't understand the problem do you? Further, you think I'm automatically siding with Powell. In fact, I'm merely pointing toward another maelstrom with police saying one thing and an eyewitness video showing something completely different.
Looks a bit like suicide by police. He may of even picked this moment as the time to make a statement with his suicidal wishes. This is exactly what you do if you wanna get shot. People have also been shot for acting like their cell phone was a gun. These things do happen.
Odd the crowd starts chanting "Hands up, don't shoot!" when what this man said was "Shoot me, go ahead and shoot!".
Tasers aren't always effective against larger deranged suspects. More than one dash-cam video of a cop simply pissing a man off with a taser and getting a beating for it.
Out of all the shots fired there's no telling how many hit nor is it always obvious from the gunner's position if you made contact. He did move towards the officers as shots rang out and that he had a knife seems confirmed, Just as with a taser a few rounds can only piss off an attacker. He was alive initially and firing stopped when he was down and unlikely to recover to continue an attack.
Clear case of no one understanding what they just saw. Horrible, yes. Could the officer's of risked their lives more to subdue the man, yes. But the law says they don't have to. Was this over the energy drinks and muffin? No.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx6y6ovHo5o[/video]
Can i remind Sanguinemoon again that the killer cop was NOT aware of the shop incident. Let's say there was a punch up between the man and the policeman what sort of mentality is there that says it is okay for the cop to fire 6 bullets into the man? There is a deep flaw in such red neck attitudes. Time after time there have been rogue policemen and sometimes filmed (liked a squad of them punching and kicking someone, etc) That military vehicles are needed even in small towns either indicates how dangerous the country is or that against that corner the police think they are the law. Last night there was a shocking news film of a cop (not in Ferguson uniform but a darker one) with a heavy miliyary style weapon in the firing position up at his shoulder. He was pointing in turn at eachh of the press men taking pictures as they walked the street. Hewa so over the top that you seen a Ferguson officer gently touching him on the shoulder and indicating to lower the thin and move away. He was a very intimidating man. In general it is a rather sad situation that the police are becoming more military in their approach, equipment and transport. Getting truncheons out happens very quickly too often as well. Throw in the military being involved and one has to wonder if the militarising of the police and it's support is not only to be questioned but challenged. The country surely does not need that attitude?
Those that think that bruising a cop's face requires 6 bullets have a moral problem that all decent citizenry will be genuinely concerned on.
Those that think that bruising a cop's face requires 6 bullets have a moral problem that all decent citizenry will be genuinely concerned on.
Cute commentary but I'm willing to bet putting you in the officer's place it ends the same way.
Wrongful arrest isn't an unheard-of phenomena, but establishment correspondents normally avoid this fate. It is something about something called the freedom of press, and about picking up erudite vipers by their tail.
The video I posted of the protest/riot was filmed by a YouTube reporter. They are all over this stuff as if they are actual reporters. Their presence and seeming agreement with the rioters are creating justification for the actions while they are getting paid nicely to do so. They are getting views from an ever growing amount of people that don't understand they aren't actual credible reporters.
I'm sure this is making it harder to sort out the good from the bad. Vigilantly reporters flocking to the scene are making it harder for the real press to be identified and they may need to take better measures to insure they are saw differently. I'm not aware of the circumstances leading to his arrest but can see where it's possible he wasn't taken seriously.
Time and time again we are seeing people not understanding the laws that exist. These things used to be more common before less than lethal alternatives became a thing. (No body go to Texas, they shoot first BTW.) The reason these laws exist as they are is due to the amount of dead officers. Ignorance isn't a defense because you don't understand the actions that will be taken. None of these people are doing things that normal law abiding citizens would do. So, why are you expecting them to be treated like a child being put in time-out? Severe actions can be taken and even deter others from doing the same.
Yes, bad things are happening on both sides. The situation is making one side to cause the other side to react and as this continues we are even starting to relate things that don't relate. At some point it helps to learn the system you live in.
Those that think that bruising a cop's face requires 6 bullets have a moral problem that all decent citizenry will be genuinely concerned on.
Well the authorities & the FBI have interviewed hundreds of potential witnesses, & it's been reported that there are witnesses that are now saying that the officer received severe facial injuries in a struggle at the police car, where in the struggle the officers firearm discharged, it's said as Brown tried to get at it, & then Brown ran, & then turned to come back to charge at the officer -- it's been reported, an injured officer----probably in fear for his life.
Now, at this point (it will be argued) the officer had all the justification he needed to empty his firearm, if need be, to neutralize the threat & defend himself.
Officers, when trained to fire at a subject, are trained to shoot at center mass.
Officers are never trained to wound --- never have been, & never will be.
I believe irregardless of training to do otherwise, if anything, all the shots except the last 2 shots were to probable non-fatal locations -- maybe intentionally -- whereas the last 1 or 2 shots took him out -- probably in desperation.
This should be a lesson --- never ever punch up on an armed officer first off, then if that isn't stupid enough,
never charge, armed or unarmed,
never charge an officer that has his gun drawn,
& orders you to "freeze"....period. All this especially if you're 6 foot 4 inches & pushing 300 pounds, & just given that exact same officer a heavy duty punchin'!!
Decent citizenry have nothing to be genuinely concerned on, but flat out stupid can get you killed, in this case I now believe it did.
Well-said, Smiley!
Those that think that bruising a cop's face requires 6 bullets have a moral problem that all decent citizenry will be genuinely concerned on.
Of course.
Police man at the US seems to have a very original status, at one hand they can fire the entire six round pack but at the other hand they're more delicate than a boy scout...
Those that think that bruising a cop's face requires 6 bullets have a moral problem that all decent citizenry will be genuinely concerned on.
Of course.
Police man at the US seems to have a very original status, at one hand they can fire the entire six round pack but at the other hand they're more delicate than a boy scout...
You two are cute together.
For a foreigner's perspective on crime and it's control across the Atlantic, I'm not any more impressed with tag-team beating suspects into submission. But when I see these things it's something I don't encounter day to day and looks brutal. Turns out it's what law enforcement get everyday and my context of the engagement goes without all the times it has went bad for officers to not react as they do.
Well-said, Smiley!
Thanks ...... I tried to be as accurate as possible (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)
So it turns out that it was self-defense.
Great news except it needs a little bit more spin so it can explain the shots fired from the victim's back.
I think that the argument that people do not understand the laws that exist is a wee bit of a distraction in all reasonable consideration. I watched a series of police interventions across America and they are horrifying. Very often when protesting about something and sitting down the culprits get treated like mad dogs. Even having sprays shot into their eyes even though doing nothing.
Tonight i got a shock regarding Ferguson's other shooting - an actual film take of the incident. It showed the black man with a knife and the police were fully correct to do something about him but the accepted activity being taken over there is something else. At no point did he lunge at either officer and they did rightly tell him to drop the weapon. When he hadn't (and still no attack by him) they both shot a total of 9 bullets into him?? Why, if he had tried to attack them (which he didn't) couldn't they have fired a shot into a leg and floored him? Nope, it seems that killing the person is more important than arresting him. Beatings are being accepted as lesser issues! There seems to be a wide issue at stake here and it is a worrying trend. It is one thing allowing a policeman to rightfully protect himself but too may are too anxious just to kill when it is NOT necessary. Sometimes not one or two bullets are sufficient but a host of bullets and as I recall one terror in NYC a barrage of shots from a group of policemen.
So I am not saying a policeman should just be done in but what is being taken as read nowadays does not give a very good impression of the police nationally. Maybe the regular killing of blacks shows something else as well that has not gone away. Both the killings in Ferguson were not justified and the evidence is as present as the nose on your face. Watching the latest killing video was frightening.
explain the shots fired from the victim's back.
One eye-witness, the companion of the deceased during the petty theft, made statements to that effect. None of the autopsies verified them…
It is one thing allowing a policeman to rightfully protect himself but too may are too anxious just to kill when it is NOT necessary.
rj, read Elmore Leonard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmore_Leonard)'s "Valdez Is Coming"…
Most people are not cut out to be constables.
explain the shots fired from the victim's back.
One eye-witness, the companion of the deceased during the petty theft, made statements to that effect. None of the autopsies verified them…
I hate to contradict you but AFAIK it was proven at the autopsy.Edit: Since I can't find the link I was referring to, I have to take back my above statement.
Edit: Since I can't find the link I was referring to, I have to take back my above statement.
Not to worry,
Krake: The Net will provide! But don't most of us care, what the truth is?
Both the killings in Ferguson were not justified and the evidence is as present as the nose on your face. Watching the latest killing video was frightening.
Not justified in your humble opinion --
'RJ Justified', or not justified in the eyes of the law --
'legally justified'?
Remember, when you speak of legally justified, you must consult the laws governing the
'justification criteria', in the jurisdiction the so called
'killing' took place.
Watching
'any' killing can be unsettling if you are unfamiliar with the subject matter -- death, especially violent death.
I'll never forget the terror, then the cold calm in the eyes of my first kill the moment life departed, as I held him down & thrust my bayonet deeper into his racing heart.
Scared the shit outa me, that is until his buddy came at me from behind a few moments later.
Now, that
scared me more was unsettling for sure!
Well I can tell you this Smiley about the throwing in of "legally justified. It will not say much about morality and principles in your country if these policemen get away with the 2 killings in Ferguson. Indeed they are not unique and as i said too many of your police think they can do what they like and get away with it. Now come on, pumping 5 bullets into an unarmed man on his knees? Hardly life threatening for the officer. Have you seen the film of the 2 policemen who shot the man with the knife? Why he had the knife we don't know but he wasn't actually physically threatening them with the thing. What chance if he had what with 2 cops and 2 guns drawn. Again 9 bullets pumped into the man? Seems killing people is more important than arresting and jailing them. Kind of odd idea on law and order and even basic humanity or principle. You have a wide problem across the country and Ferguson is just another sad story and will not be surprised if any consequence of the killings by cops gets any justice. Judging by the numbers of blacks regularly beaetn up or shot by police the racial issue is still simmering. Morals are at stake on this issue.
Want to be able to beat up in groups or kill people and get away with it? Join the police.
....Now come on, pumping 5 bullets into an unarmed man on his knees?.....
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif) Not even Michael Brown's own mother & lawyer would believe that malarkey.
How far up behind the monkeys tail did ya have to go for that one!!?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
........It will not say much about morality and principles in your country.....
We'll sleep at night, so you stay up all night & cuss us like usual, 'cuz we don't give a rats puckered ass.
Makes ya so mad ya just wanna spit now, don't it.............
Both the killings in Ferguson were not justified and the evidence is as present as the nose on your face. Watching the latest killing video was frightening.
The options:Not justified in your humble opinion -- 'RJ Justified', or not justified in the eyes of the law -- 'legally justified'?
Ok.....so there was a 3
rd justification slant/scenario:
[glow=orange,2,300]
'Not Justified due to Obsessive Anti-American Bias coupled with a splatter of RJ Justification'[/glow].
Now, if the facts hold true as has recently been reported as witnesses came forth, according to the legal sources recently interviewed, they should probably be ruled appropriately as justified deaths -- in lay terms,
'A Good Shoot'If that frosts yer sherbert filled crusted cookies there ole RJ, well as granny useta say ..... [shadow=grey,right]
"... it's tough titty when ya gotta chew the milk!..." [/shadow]
Our laws are the only ones that matter here, & your self-proclaimed morality means jack squat west of Mingulay ......... period.
Well ............................ except to you that is, but that ain't nuffin' new .... is it. You'll still go on yer anti-American crusades irregardless --- won't ya now.
It will not say much about morality and principles in your country
....Now come on, pumping 5 bullets into an unarmed man on his knees?.....
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif) Not even Michael Brown's own mother & lawyer would believe that malarkey.
How far behind the monkeys tail did ya have to go for that one!!?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Can i remind Sanguinemoon again that the killer cop was NOT aware of the shop incident.
Pay attention, Howie. There was a second incident in St Louis in which a man stole energy drinks and muffins and it ended with the police gunning him down. The police say he had a knife and was two feet away. Eyewitness video seems to show him further away from that, but from the video's vantage point you can't tell if he had a knife or not. So now we have to determine why that petty crime ended in death. Perhaps it was suicide by cop, perhaps there's so much anger and resentment toward the police that citizens in that community have taken to attacking the police when the punishment will be just a couple days in jail or community service. Or maybe the shooting was unjustified. Right now we don't know what was going on the mind of the man or the cops. As I told Oakdale, there's something bigger going on than the specific incidents and it isn't good.
The idea of the policeman wearing a camera has to do with what happens in Internal Affairs when a case like this happens. The cop says he shot in self-defense, a dozen people in the neighborhood say it was cold-blooded murder. Which was it?
You mean something like this?
Attention: Violent Graphic Video!
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tpAZObNZfI[/video]
For curiosity, was the police man arrested?
He was displaced and does now administrative work at the police. There are no charges against him so far.
As for the OP's question if "is there a police psychology problem??", his question seems to be more than justified.
St. Louis Area Cop Thinks Protesters Should Be ‘Put Down Like Rabid Dogs’ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/22/st-louis-area-cop-thinks-protesters-should-be-put-down-like-rabid-dogs/)
Sgt. Major Dan Page has some strongly-held beliefs, which contradict claims that race isn't an issue with St. Louis police. (http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/watch-rant-officer-who-shoved-don-lemon)
Officer ‘Go F*ck Yourself’ Points Giant Rifle at Camera, Tells Ferguson Protesters ‘I’ll F*cking Kill You’ (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/cop-ferguson-ill-fcking-kill-you.html)
Officer ‘Go F*ck Yourself’ Points Giant Rifle at Camera, Tells Ferguson Protesters ‘I’ll F*cking Kill You’ (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/cop-ferguson-ill-fcking-kill-you.html)
There you have the psychological angle of the question.
Better saying the psychiatric angle.
I'll F*cking Kill You’ it's different from a simple I'll Kill You, it remits to, and reinforces, a clear Freudian trauma, the police being probably sexually abused in children not to speak about a strong and deep Oedipus complex...
No wonder he wants to f*ucking kill everybody...
Since this verb turned into an adjective seems to be widely used by certain levels of the American society, the above identified psychological issues are prone to be a characteristic of a significant part of the population.
I'll recommend Xanax at industrial doses.
There is a police psychology problem for sure, but still no one here cares to look at the current case from a purely legal standpoint and then add in their own brand of moral and ethical issues.
Michael Brown physically assaulted a police officer and grappled for his gun, both of which are violent felonies. When Brown ran from the scene of the crime, he became an escaping violent felon and innocent people needed protection from him. Did Darren Wilson act within his constitutional right and duty as a police officer to protect innocent people from a fleeing violent felon? Was he perhaps dazed enough from the bone-breaking beating he took that he acted purely out of his police instinct and training to shoot a fleeing and violent felon multiple times? Was that an overreaction? Reports are now coming out that Brown had turned back towards the officer and was coming at him. Was Brown acting in self defense by turning back towards officer Wilson? How long should officer Wilson have thought about the situation before taking action...long enough for Brown to snatch a nearby citizen to shield himself with?
On this forum officer Wilson has been tried and convicted by some members who claim to know what was going on in the minds of both Brown and officer Wilson--and in fact, all US police officers. This is an example of the 'outraged citizen' psychology that is sweeping this nation from an, as yet, unclear situation. Mob mentality aside, isn't citizen Darren Brown still innocent until proven otherwise? Why does this police officer and his family have to go into hiding in a country that prides itself on liberty and justice for all? :knight:
Despite the appearance, this is really about American psychology to most of the agitators.
Sorry Sanguinemoon but I find it difficult to go along with that thinking but what jseaton2311 comes up with puts you in the shade this time!
Anyway, it is almost a grudge that the 2 cops facing the man with the knife were not being assaulted at the time nor was he going near them. His move should have been to drop the damn knife the way the police in America act. Instead 2 policemen shoot 9 bullets into him rather than arrest a felon? Even though the body was motionless they still went through with handcuffing the man. As for the main character I mentioned to Sanguinemoon and who hadn't been know to the officer re the shop matter should be shot 6 times for what happened during the confrontation?
jseaton2311 waffles on with liberal minded mayhem on what may have occurred between the man and the officer. We know the cop had a bruise and he comes out with this wandering stuff about possible happenings. Let us accept that during a struggle (we don't know who started that do we?!) and the cop got a bruise but still shoots the unarmed man time after time. There is a very, very good reason why that cop did that and the other two mental cops did the shooting of the man with the knife. It is a basic, fundamental and routine matter known to all. That is that every week several people are gunned down or beaten to death by policemen because the cops know they will get away with it. In virtually every case it is a white officer shooting a black to death. And you know what? there are so many of these cops get away with it time after time so they do not have to worry. Indeed when an officer gets arrested or ends in jail it is such a small statistic it is hardly noticeable.
Unfortunately the police thinks they are above the law time after time and must make intelligent people a bit concerned there is so much of it. If people here are going to try and find excuses then the place is a hell of a lot worse than we think. Now the Prescient is going to "look at" the near half a billion given annually to police forces including small towns! and the way the press has been treated is unbelievable in a democracy. Threatening, arresting them that even the President had to make a public statement about it. Don't move fast enough and you get threatened with guns or sworn at. Want to speak to them or film matters and the same reaction. Now on the Internet policemen have appeared saying not enough were shot and using racist stuff to boot. There is a deep psychological problem in the police who have immorally misused the idea of serve and protect for their own damnable attitude and practices. These are all signs of a slow move to police State tactics and all sensible citizens should be ringing alarm bells because what the cops are doing is just the same as in a dictatorship.
Regarding that man shot 6 times you could make it a wager in a betting shop as to what may happen in October. Why it needs that long in the circumstances is another load of baloney. I bet dictatorships across the globe are smiling in satisfaction as to what purports to be a proper police force in a nation that is a democracy. :irked:
There's an interesting paper (that let's me applaud the Obama/Holder Justice Dept. — yeah, I know!) which deserves wider dissemination: Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras, Assessing the Evidence (https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/Police%20Officer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf)…
(This is one of the few times you'll see me posting a link to a paper — before I've read it in its entirety! The subject is too important to ignore purported scholarly work, on presumption. I have little respect for the Holder style of lawyering. But I have no reason -other than that- to question this article and its conclusions, nor the motivation of its authors.)
Does this presage the Big Brother scenario? :) Sure! But Pandora's Box cannot be re-stuffed, and closed — let alone, locked! We'll have to learn to live with it…
So, it's a good thing!
jseaton2311 waffles on with liberal minded mayhem on what may have occurred between the man and the officer.
The sudden and violent death of any teenager is a tragedy and warrants a thorough investigation into exactly what happened. The officer in this case however, is not even being allowed a temporary benefit of the doubt, much less his constitutional right to being innocent until proven otherwise by a jury of his peers in a US court of law (not by 'armchair quarterbacks' who only play soccer).
The facts keep changing and I bought the preliminary report of a fractured eye socket, which may in fact, be false. Exactly how badly the officer was beaten may not fully come out until trial, if indeed a trial is deemed necessary. I imagine that there will be a trial though, if for no other reason than to keep Ferguson from immediately burning down to the ground. :knight: :cheers:
I watched a retired Philadelphian police captain (wearing his uniform in front of the camera) being interviewed at police actions in Ferguson and he tore them to shreds.
There is no way Americans should accept the present situation of the self-aggrandisement of their police, their too willingness to beat up and to kill when they don't require to. Nine times out of 10 it is a black getting done in by a white cop and it is right across the nation this is going on, week by week, month by month and no sign of a change. The in your face attitude in Ferguson as I indicated with cursing and threatening to "kill you" and the militarisation of forces does not vogue well for the future. It has become too easy to gun down, beat to death or like in New York with a squad of them led by one strangling (illegally of course) a black man. Surprise, surprise. In the vast majority of cases no decisive action is taken against the police so of course they think they can do what they like and say they are policing the law. If sensible people over there believe that nonsense then there is a very deep and very fundamental problem that shows a very bad picture of life there.
For people to make excuses for the 2 shocking killings in Ferguson only belies that direction and far too gung ho. The police are very much not judge and jury but for too long have been getting away with this and on a secondary basis shows that the racist card is very deeply embedded. When the Head of State of a nation has to (almost apologetic in his style) publicly say that there have been over the top matters just think what that says to the rest of the world. Brining in the Army was another over the top thing too and the things that police are getting away with are like the police in a dictatorship State not one that is emphasising principles opposed to such.
My run in with an officer from the NYPD on one of my visits over the pond was mild but in general something more worrying is going on in general practice. If black folk want to be safe I would suggest they go out with a white friend in case they meet police.........
.......I imagine that there will be a trial though, if for no other reason than to keep Ferguson from immediately burning down to the ground. :knight: :cheers:
Well, it would be a perfect world if everyone kept an open mind, but alas there are quite a few closed ones pertaining to this matter.
A trial, I think will happen, but for the benifit of those with open minds to absorb & appreciate the procedures needed to scratch at the facts, & come to a legal outcome one way or another.
It's that outcome that may just, based on your scenario, may just be a
'finger in the dike' measure, & in the long run the undercurrents of ignorance, I imagine, will swell to the dikes unavoidable undoing.
Innocent =
More riots, looting, & mayhem.
~~ or ~~Guilty =
Less riots, looting, & mayhem.
Involved in a confrontation between the officer and the man (black as the norm) the man knelt down and raised his hands asking not to be shot.
This is rabble-rousing pure and simple. This is the type of reckless emotionalism that,
by itself, agitates people to loot, burn down businesses and even get innocent people hurt or killed. What you say is completely unsubstantiated as there are now conflicting reports even from the black community. It would seem that the media has gone completely mad in their on-again, off-again reporting about this situation. You were not an on-scene-eyewitness to this incident and the media has lost its credibility to believe anything else it has to say on this matter, you have nothing of substance to offer on this. Relax and watch some soccer--it always puts me to sleep. :knight: :cheers:
A trial, I think will happen, but for the benifit of those with open minds to absorb & appreciate the procedures needed to scratch at the facts, & come to a legal outcome one way or another.
The outcome may not be to the liking of the black community if the discharge of the officer's weapon is legally construed to be assault with a deadly weapon. Pink, green or purple polka dotted, one can expect to get shot for that. :knight: :cheers:
Nothing to offer?? What an arrogant and self-satisfying smugness is that nonsense. The second video of the 2 policemen (note two) shooting the man with the knife who at that point was not attacking them) required both to fire 9 bullets into him? Your mindset over there is typical of the mindset that with a would=be intelligent summation that is as ridiculous as the comments themselves. Equally the other aloofness on the colour is typical of too many. Considering the people who usually get gunned down or beaten to a pulp by what you think is a reasonable police force being normally black all the more reason for my advice to take a white man with you for safety.
Fergus is NOT an isolated incident and neither was the furore at LA.These are happening every week somewhere in the wonderful land for the world to see as a beacon (groan). As more and more of your force is ready to very quickly adopt military patterns and weaponry with an over the top response it is showing the rest of the world two choices. (1) You are a temperamental and easily excited lot. (2) The place is that bad it needs to become more of a police state and use the army as well. If the officer in the first incident is charged and found guilty (holding my breath on that one) it will be unique. Secondly the two other cops who shot the second man 9 times should also be arrested.
You are far too prone to beat people up or shoot them rather than arrest them. This is followed by fairy tales on the law and it's administration. Considering officers do not care a damn about gunning people and curse and swear along with sticking heavy weaponry in the face of the media and as I said telling them they would get f----- well killed says even more about your problem. All the waffle we get here justifying such police behaviour is a disgrace and I dare say there are countless Americans who wonder what is happening to their nation the way the police are acting like loose cannons. It is becoming the standard to shoot someone if you don't have enough cops to beat the man up so your PR in the world is a disaster but it is self-created. Don't whine at me know-it-all as you have a giant problem with what passes for far TOO many animals passing at policemen. The SS or the old USSR secret police would have loved the people you have spread right across the place. The people I feel sorry for are the decent cops the majority of the population who will be shaking their heads and if you are black in the land of the free and home of the brave bunk.
There's an interesting paper (that let's me applaud the Obama/Holder Justice Dept. — yeah, I know!) which deserves wider dissemination: Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras, Assessing the Evidence (https://ojpdiagnosticcenter.org/sites/default/files/spotlight/download/Police%20Officer%20Body-Worn%20Cameras.pdf)…
From the paper:
Farrar (2013) reported two findings that seek to tie the use of force reduction to the body-worn cameras: 1.First, “shifts without cameras experienced twice as many incidents of use of force as shifts with cameras” (8).2.Second, a qualitative review of all use of force incidents determined that officers without cameras were more likely to use force without having been physically threatened. This occurred in five of the 17 use of force incidents involving officers without cameras
The thrust of this (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-witness-accounts-20140821-story.html) article is about the diametrically opposing eyewitness accounts, with some claiming Brown attacked the officer and others claiming Brown was attempting to surrender when he was shot. Freshman psychology and sociology will tell you eyewitnesses are not reliable. Anyway, the article supplies a graph of this data.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trbimg.com%2Fimg-53f76c04%2Fturbine%2Fla-na-g-police-behavior-body-worn-cameras-20140822%2F550%2F16x9&hash=4cee50a2498b12ca7fafd7e2531fc480" rel="cached" data-hash="4cee50a2498b12ca7fafd7e2531fc480" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.trbimg.com/img-53f76c04/turbine/la-na-g-police-behavior-body-worn-cameras-20140822/550/16x9)
I'm noting the readiness of the community to convict Officer Wilson in their minds. Whether or not the shooting was justified in this incidence or not, perhaps the reaction of the community has a basis in officers using excessive force when it's not required. Wilson's injuries give strong credence to the accounts of Brown attacking him, and even the possibility the Wilson shot Brown save his own life. But as I said, as tragic as the shooting may be, there was bigger issues at play. Note that in the LA Times article, "Josie", who reports that Brown indeed charged Wilson declined to give her last name. Perhaps she fears retaliation from community members.
From the paper Oakdale offiers:
State law bars audio recording of private conversations without the consent of all directly involved. Unauthorized recording exposes police to potential civil suits. State law does allow an exception for dashboard-mounted cameras in police cars but not body cameras on police officers.... The city law department has informed the police department that “it would be unwise to implement a body camera program without first obtaining a legislative exception to the Washington Privacy Act.” (Rosenberg 2011)
Yes, but cameras are ubiquitous. Not only in shops and stores, but on certain intersection and traffic lights. If I run the redlight on say, Tropicana and and Koval (near the MGM Grand on the Strip), even if I don't cause an accident (very likely), I can expect a ticket in the mail. Why can't I sue? It's the same principle. A government agency uses a camera to catch my illegal behavior and punishes me accordingly, a cop's bodycam catches me resisting arrest and I get punished accordingly for that in another incident. Right, audio conversation. What's so precious about my words and not images of what I'm doing? It seems to me that privacy laws haven't kept up with technology.
Interesting about police privacy concerns:
In May 2012, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department announced that it planned to pilot test body-worn cameras. The Las Vegas Police Protective Association, a police union, responded by threatening to file suit against the department because the cameras represented a “clear change in working conditions” that would have to be negotiated through the union contract (Schoenmann 2012). The NYPD union has made similar claims (Celona 2013)
Interesting for being local to me, but also the union for force notorious for shooting first and asking questions later to sue over privacy concerns. Perhaps the union knows some of its members will be caught using excessive force? (I can't help but reminded again of a complaint Smileyfaze made in another thread about a citizen with a gun in seat being arrested. His complaint was laughable because odds are good that man wouldn't have survived the incident around here...)
it's not just cameras you need over there it is jailing what passes for policemen.
Cato has some words to share: You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist (http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist)
Not surprised at that news. Pointless giving them a baton or taser.
@jax: The author of the Cato essay says "The point of the quote is to focus people on sources of mortality society-wide, because this focus can guide public policy efforts at reducing death. (Thus, the number is not a product of the base rate fallacy.)"
First, I'd disagree that the base rate fallacy is obviated by this reasoning. In fact, I'd argue that he's committing what I'd call the Progressive's fallacy: Action at the highest level of government (i.e., as far-removed from pertinent circumstances as practicable) is always preferable! :)
A fairly common example (in miniature...) is that of school-wide so-called Zero Tolerance policies on drugs or violence here in the U.S. that forbid aspirin tablets or "hand guns" (you know: thumb up, pinkie and ring fingers folded into the palm, and the index and middle fingers pointing? Should a child also say "Bang! Bang!" there's a possibility of the local SWAT team being called out to deal with the situation...)
Part of the "problem" with any example of the Progressive's fallacy is the complacency with which it encourages a lack of individual responsibility -- as if such will have no consequences, intended or not.
Interesting contribution but the police are still kill mad and get away with it.........
Zero Tolerance
Zero tolerance policies have this tendency to go bad. I'm surprised that any intelligent person anywhere still uses them. You complain about incidents about overly harsh penalties for a fingergun. It gets better. I tutored in a high school where a girl was expelled for bubblegum. It's not even about guns, per say. It's about policies put down by out of touch bureaucrats that have "zero tolerance" for individual judgement.
It's about policies put down by out of touch bureaucrats that have "zero tolerance" for individual judgement.
Agreed!
Interesting contribution but the police are still kill mad and get away with it.........
They don't get away with it at all rjh--they are paying in blood. In 2011 the police killed about 400 people while people during that same year, killed 171 police officers. By comparison, the police are getting massacred. I'm not using this as any kind of justification, of course, just a cold hard fact. However, it would seem as though you are thinking the police deserve to be killed in return.
No one wishes to point to the fact that an Hispanic/Caucasian/Asian teen who brutally assaulted a police officer, grappled for his gun, causing it to go off and for him to be shot as he fled the scene, would receive anything but second page news--that teen would just be another dumb young punk who played with fire and got killed doing so. Again, this is irrelevant to the case at hand, but we all know that the media will sensationalize anything and to anywhere if it means making $$$. :knight: :cheers:
we all know that the media will sensationalize anything and to anywhere if it means making $$$.
Sir: Don't even pretend to be that naive!
I'll give you a very different example of "media motivation"… Read and ponder, then get back to me. The facile $$$ explanation is perfectly in accord with such aims!
But, as usual, there's more to the story: An interesting article (http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide?all=1).
It's about policies put down by out of touch bureaucrats that have "zero tolerance" for individual judgement.
I couldn't agree more in the context you provide.
But individual judgement in adult life is subject to society's rules. Rules that can change. Taking to the streets is a last resort and no one has even made a first move in the right direction yet. Change isn't instant of course. But how many people that have an opinion on any of this are voters and if so understand how to operate change in the system? Not only are the rioters not paying taxes but most voters don't either. If they are white voters most are on social security, if black voters most are on welfare or social security. How many of those opinions can be dismissed or pacified when substituted with a nonsolution?
My point is the system works and people do have power. What does it say when most citizens aren't voters or much less understand the way to act in the system? You don't have to be an activist in a system where most of the people take their say. Politics will change just because more opinions in voters means you might actually wanna know what you're talking about. And more people knowing how to pressure the system will eliminate failures as they happen. Until then the system exists as it does by reason. If your own ignorance gets you shot when you just thought you'd earn a little street cred it's not the cops fault, it's yours. If some other law gets you and you think the system screwed you. It's your fault too. Either you need to accept society's laws and learn them or you did nothing to change an obviously flawed law.
I am afraid jseaton2311 you are a wee bot bordering on the side step there. I am talking about policemen who instead of arresting an unarmed man maybe even using a baton if needed or a damn taser immediately go for the gun and shoot the man dead! That is bad enough but in your thinking 6 bullets is fine (or 9 bullets if 2 are cops are deciding to end your life). So do try and keep to the main point of unarmed people being gunned down by police. That is happening EVERY week so a highly dubious matter is going on. And in most of such ridiculous situations the police tend to get off with it so the macho minds in unform think they can do what they like.
So, I read RJH's posts and you would think, from them, that the police around here do little else all day every day except shoot everything that moves. Just ain't so, McGee. The police shootings that make it into the news do so precisely because it DOESN'T happen all the time.
Around my neck of the woods, every major department has some sort of "internal affairs" division that investigates every instance where an officer's gun is discharged in the line of duty. If a death resulted, the officer is put on leave while the instance is investigated. It just doesn't happen that often anyway, even in the relatively high crime neighborhoods. It does happen way more than it should-- but still, if I get pulled over by a cop I'm not worried about getting shot. It won't make me want to invite my friends to celebrate-- but still I won't be shot.
Another case, and another important aspect (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/29/nobody-likes-a-game-of-he-said-she-said-but-far-worse-is-the-game-of-we-said-hes-dead/) to be considered (presented by Eugene Volokh). (Yes, I'm glad Kozinski is on the 9th Circuit!) The difference between assumption and presumption shouldn't be blurred: The trial court's summary judgment was predicated on the former...
Such findings are the job of a jury.
I didn't indicate from the start mjsmsprt40 that the whole police were culprits however I would remind that the situation is that just about every week there is a repeat of the police violence or killing similar to Fergus. here on the forum we get gobblygook about law, legals stuff and sidestepping. I watched an interesting programme recently on the regular over the top actions by police and it is a concern that the re are those who think because who they are they are special and will be able to avoid serious action.
On one of my two visits to the ex-colonies apart from the cheeky NYPD officer I came across twice in 3 days (!) - amazing that (!), I chatted to a sergeant who asked me if it was true that my police just went about regular duty with a notebook and a baton. On confirming that he smiled and shook his head with a degree of wonderment.
You pretend every bad thing tv shows you is an epidemic but seem to of had no trouble on your random trip encountering random people.
Bet you had enough sense to avoid inner-city communities. Too often these things happen because they have no choice and eventually questionable events will happen. We don't live in Utopia yet, and it's gonna cost lives to get there. It'd be nice if such events got more than finger pointing from morons that don't know how or why. It's not sidestepping to go around these people to address the actual issue. In fact it's needed. You have to go around the ignorance and make people see the problem before a solution can be found. Morons watching their TV hoping someone fixes it hasn't got any positive results yet... Actually, it's part of the problem.
Must say ensbb3 that it may be your way of trying to combat a weak corner. Every week 2 people (and routinely, black by the way) are gunned down in the same general circumstances as Ferguson. To simply try and reduce the problem by withering slagging is not the answer i am afraid.
Must say ensbb3 that it may be your way of trying to combat a weak corner. Every week 2 people (and routinely, black by the way) are gunned down in the same general circumstances as Ferguson. To simply try and reduce the problem by withering slagging is not the answer i am afraid.
Then why, in the name of God, do you do it in such a boring, predictable, ungrammatical, misspelled and irritating way, every day?
Must say ensbb3 that it may be your way of trying to combat a weak corner. Every week 2 people (and routinely, black by the way) are gunned down in the same general circumstances as Ferguson. To simply try and reduce the problem by withering slagging is not the answer i am afraid.
Who told you that, the BBC?
"Gunned down", now you even sound like the news. With no context or indication what you're talking bout you've passed judgment on nothing. People get killed in Scotland everyday too. (Scotland still top of British murder rates... (http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/433651/Scotland-still-top-of-British-murder-rates-despite-record-fall-in-violent-deaths)) I don't hear about it. Know why? Nobody cares here so the news won't show it. No ratings in it.
People view the news to see what they want. Not the truth explained but a story they want to hear with facts they can repeat sprinkled about. If you wanna know why your country views the US as it does? It's because you want to. Nothing you claim from here is what I see as it really is. You simply don't know because you're duped into thinking TV has told you how it is and not just what keeps you watching. They aren't gonna risk telling you what you don't wanna hear. Poof goes their advertising money if they lose the mindless viewers that ads sell to.
You should be outraged, TV has made you ignorant.
Don't even pretend to be that naive!
Yes of course, I apologize. The media has always been beyond reproach, more ethical than all religions on earth put together and has never over-sensationalized (tabloid-style), misreported or beat to death a single story ever, just to make an extra buck. Really. :knight: :P
Is one line of text the limit of your comprehension? Could you not have read the few more I posted? And the article I linked to?
There's more to be said than "the Media make money and people are stupid"…! But, since you've said that (…and surprised everybody!), what can you add to the conversation? :)
You're becoming another Howie, sir!
Is one line of text the limit of your comprehension? Could you not have read the few more I posted? And the article I linked to?
There's more to be said than "the Media make money and people are stupid"…! But, since you've said that (…and surprised everybody!), what can you add to the conversation? :)
You're becoming another Howie, sir!
How unkind
You're becoming another Howie, sir!
Please don't try to talk me into another suicide attempt.
I read the article--most of it anyway--and I have always had a great deal of respect for those who report the news. My entire family has been long time friends with a popular and respected news guy in California--my sister was even engaged to the guy. I had many a beer and laughs with him over the years and through him, I learned just how tough that job can be. He spoke freely about the media over-sensationalizing a story at times to make more money, but then what institution--including religion--doesn't try to make an unethical extra buck at times?
Maybe it's just me not wanting to hear a thousand different ways to rehash the same old bad news, but isn't there a responsibility to not have certain negatively impacting incidents held unnecessarily long before the public? Sure, it's a matter of supply & demand, but then so is selling illegal drugs. :knight: :cheers:
Please don't try to talk me into another suicide attempt.
:) Sir, as
Howie persists so shall you! (There a worse things…)
Thanks for the comment Oakdale as it draws folk to note that most of the brain dead are far away from me. Thanks!
In fact, I'd argue that he's committing what I'd call the Progressive's fallacy: Action at the highest level of government (i.e., as far-removed from pertinent circumstances as practicable) is always preferable!
An author for the the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) arguing for that? Nonsense, he neither implies nor directly states any such thing. In fact, if anything he argues against it by leveling criticism against the war on drugs - a Federal mandate dating back to the time of Reagan. In fact, he links to this (http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller//ABAFIN.PDF) article that's severely critical the central government's actions against threats that mainly exist in "the highest level of government"'s diseased head. You're committing the same fallacy with him that you do with my posts, that criticizing local authority's actions implies granting more power to the Federal authority.
An author for the the Cato Institute (a libertarian think tank) arguing for that? Nonsense
…you know, arguing from the label to the beliefs is, well, more than a little dishonest?
I don't call you a Progressive, in order to "place" your views: I have, over the years, placed your views — and found them to be aptly described by the term "progressive"… Likewise, I call you Partisan!
Thanks for the comment Oakdale as it draws folk to note that most of the brain dead are far away from me.
Quick! Look in the mirror you'll see one. Pretty sure he was taking a poke at you.
And now a young boy shot dead in New York city due to having what looked like a gun which turned out to be a dummy. Because he hadn't raised his hands he was gunned down with more than one bullet. In the same city another policeman killed a totally innocent man on a stairwell and even the Commissioner stated this. Both killed were black of course. It appears this is a semi-regular thing and police going over the top and reacting rather oddly. Wonder if we could take bets that the murderer in Ferguson police uniform having pumped in 6 shots gets away with it. If no it will be a surprise because each time there are incidents like these the police do well, get away with it. The day will come when you have a police state over there what with loose gunmen in uniform, armoured cars, having soliders on streets.
Just because someone is in a uniform (ex-colonists just love uniforms and makes you safe even if a headbanger) it does not make them immune from that Constitution, rights and reasonable treatement in a so-called democratic society. Now some black rights leaders are calling for black policemen to patrol black areas not whites! What this rather dubious idea does is show the depth of racial tension that is still so much part of society. Too many officers have some thought they are Wyatt Earp and the old West instead of a modern country.
"(ex-colonists just love uniforms"
and silly hats .... and orange sashes.....
.....Wonder if we could take bets that the murderer in Ferguson police uniform having pumped in 6 shots gets away with it.....
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/crystal-ball_lg.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cowboypistol_004.gif) Psssssst ....RJ (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Secrets004.gif) ....... Bet the house ....... bet the freekin' house! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/sherriff.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
And the people in those hats and sashes don't act at all like your police do you silly man (or boy) so a wasted comment. Apart from betraying your background it skips the whole thing about American police. They get away time after time as if they are the law. It IS people in neat uniforms over there who supposedly protect peope who gun down repeatedly in odd situations. Even this latest thing with the 12 year old laddie the caller did say that it looked like a dummy so explanations please. The black man shot down on stairs for no reason which the police boss said was wrong. Explanations please. The Ferguson man who got into a tiff with that policeman and got shot 6 times. Explanation please. These are happening every week over there and rarely does an officer get done for it.
On top of all these happenings police trying to outdo looking like soldiers? Military vehicles? Soldiers on the streets. You do have a big problem over there but if in a uniform you can bet that mostly they will get off scot free. If the Ferguson Jesse James in uniform gets off heavens that will be unique (and you well know it too Smilefaze but then you are a terrorist supporter). Give a Yank a uniform and run for cover like Afghans when they seen marines. :worried:
Roll on Monday
Well RJ, if you would have bet your (as I, in retrospect, so astutely suggested) bet your house on the outcome that the brave & soon to be exonerated officer, Officer Wilson, would be found free of any criminal wrongdoing by the Grand Jury,
you would have won .... big time!Officer Wilson was cleared of any & all charges, & no indictments will be forthcoming ......period.
The Grand Jury found that there was
"no probable cause to return any criminal indictment".The dead teen was found by the Grand Jury to be the overwhelming aggressor, based on copious testimony/statements, direct video recordings, & other physical evidence. The overpowering testimony attesting to this conclusion came directly from the Ferguson African-American Community.
[glow=green,2,300]
The Grand Jury has found that Officer Wilson acted completely within the law.[/glow]
[glow=green,2,300]
Officer Wilson had the absolute right to act in self-defense, & is prescribed to use deadly force,
as he did, consistent with his training.
When any Officer acts with deadly force, only one outcome is sought &/or expected.[/glow]
[glow=blue,2,300]Justice is served.
Had this man not assaulted, & subsequently, threateningly "Full Charge" Officer Wilson as he did, he most probably would be alive today!
[/glow]
Now, as always with unpopular decisions of this nature, the pre-planned destruction, looting, & general mayhem is beginning ...... mostly carried out by outside agitators, not from Ferguson itself.
I wouldn't be so sure about testimony from the AF community proving innocence of the cop.
We do know that construction workers who worked at the incident site stated that Ferguson was backing up with his hands up when shot multiple times.
The thing about American grand juries is that it is run by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the one who decides what evidence is submitted to the Grand Jury. Hence the saying that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
It also works the other way around. A prosecutor can selectively submit to lessen the chance of indictment. That rarely happens, but does happen.
This prosecutor is very, very pro-cop. His father was a cop who was shot and died in the line of duty.
FERGUSON, Mo. - The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has deep family roots among police: his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.
I wouldn't be so sure about testimony from the AF community proving innocence of the cop.
We do know that construction workers who worked at the incident site stated that Ferguson was backing up with his hands up when shot multiple times.
The thing about American grand juries is that it is run by the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the one who decides what evidence is submitted to the Grand Jury. Hence the saying that a prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich.
It also works the other way around. A prosecutor can selectively submit to lessen the chance of indictment. That rarely happens, but does happen.
This prosecutor is very, very pro-cop. His father was a cop who was shot and died in the line of duty.
FERGUSON, Mo. - The Missouri prosecutor overseeing an investigation into the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown has deep family roots among police: his father, mother, brother, uncle and cousin all worked for St. Louis' police department, and his father was killed while responding to a call involving a black suspect.
They have a community resident's own video that recorded an accounting of the incident, which eliminated a lot of conflicting/false/mistaken/retracted testimony, while at the same time corroborating the bulk of the remaining testimony which shows the young man in this case as the aggressor, & supports the Officer's statements.Each of the 50 States, their Counties, & their Municipalities all have their own set of rules/laws on how their Grand Jury processes, & procedures, are to take place. Some are similar, whereas some are quite different.The findings of this Grand Jury, the procedures employed, followed by a Q & A session:[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JqkikttLMU[/VIDEO]
Killings by Utah police outpacing gang, drug, child-abuse homicides (http://www.sltrib.com/news/1842489-155/killings-by-utah-police-outpacing-gang)
In the past five years, more Utahns have been killed by police than by gang members.
Or drug dealers. Or from child abuse.
And so far this year, deadly force by police has claimed more lives — 13, including a Saturday shooting in South Jordan — than has violence between spouses and dating partners.
As the tally of fatal police shootings rises, law enforcement watchdogs say it is time to treat deadly force as a potentially serious public safety problem.
"The numbers reflect that there could be an issue, and it’s going to take a deeper understanding of these shootings," said Chris Gebhardt, a former police lieutenant and sergeant who served in Washington, D.C., and in Utah, including six years on SWAT teams and several training duties. "It definitely can’t be written off as citizen groups being upset with law enforcement."
Through October, 45 people had been killed by law enforcement officers in Utah since 2010, accounting for 15 percent of all homicides during that period.
A Salt Lake Tribune review of nearly 300 homicides, using media reports, state crime statistics, medical-examiner records and court records, shows that use of force by police is the second-most common circumstance under which Utahns kill each other, surpassed only by intimate partner violence.
Some interesting numbers, It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)
A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.
Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.
The only resident video I know about is
Video of the moments after black teenager Michael Brown was fatally shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, indicates that a witness on the scene said the unarmed 18-year-old's hands were raised when he was killed.
The cell phone footage, released by CNN, of two construction workers at the scene early last month appears to support accounts by other witnesses that Brown was retreating or surrendering when he was shot by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, legal experts said on Friday.
The video shows one of the men raising his hands immediately after the fatal shooting and shouting, "He had his fuckin' hands up."
The way it works is that the prosecutor submits the witnesses.
Witnesses are interviewed by prosecutors and detectives assigned to the prosecutor. If some witnesses says the Brown's hands are up and others say they were not, those witnesses may be told their stories are not consistent with what others told. They will be badgered to "be sure of the truth, are you really, really sure because your story is inconsistent with what we heard. We really need the truth. You are under oath and we'd hate for you to be found guilty of perjury."
In all the excitement no one is really sure. The witnesses will say so and not brought to the Grand Jury due to unreliable testimony.
That does happen. I don't know if it happened in Ferguson.
Some interesting numbers, It’s Incredibly Rare For A Grand Jury To Do What Ferguson’s Just Did (http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/)
A St. Louis County grand jury on Monday decided not to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police Officer Darren Wilson in the August killing of teenager Michael Brown. The decision wasn’t a surprise — leaks from the grand jury had led most observers to conclude an indictment was unlikely — but it was unusual. Grand juries nearly always decide to indict.
Or at least, they nearly always do so in cases that don’t involve police officers.
Former New York state Chief Judge Sol Wachtler famously remarked that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.” The data suggests he was barely exaggerating: According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. attorneys prosecuted 162,000 federal cases in 2010, the most recent year for which we have data. Grand juries declined to return an indictment in 11 of them.
A recent Houston Chronicle investigation found that “police have been nearly immune from criminal charges in shootings” in Houston and other large cities in recent years. In Harris County, Texas, for example, grand juries haven’t indicted a Houston police officer since 2004; in Dallas, grand juries reviewed 81 shootings between 2008 and 2012 and returned just one indictment.
Its not a police psychology problem.
Its a military and police psychology problem. Americans fawn over anything having to do with the police and military. We're inundated by that stuff.
In most American fairs or large exhibitions there is a military presence or display and often a police demonstration. You will always see the public fawning and drooling over the displays and demonstrations by their "heroes", like 2 year olds getting candy.
So of you assault a cop in America you can expect to be dead? This the country that marches across the world going on about honour, rights, and all the usual tripe. The BBC actually said the officer fired 12 times? Anyway if you assault a cop in America the land of the free and brave expect 6 bullets pumped into you for daring to take one on. Shooting an unarmed man deserves to be done and not just one bullet but six? America is so totally out of synch with sense and even decent law. This from a country that propgates decency, law and sense? You lot over there have a very deep problem and it is disgusting. I watched a Ferguson officer telling a news camera man filming for tv told to f--- off or he would get arrested. The legal system over there is a disgrace and afarce. Then that other totally innocent black man shot on a stair in NYC. Followed by a 12 yearold with a toy gun. The boy obviously not thinking straight had not dropped it when told so he gets killed. This is not law but a modern version of the old black lynching mentality.
Terrorist suppirters like Smily get off with this stuff because they have a weird view on law and so-called justice. The police always get away with it and the undercurrent is racist. As long as you have uniform and metal badge on it you can get away with anything especially iof dealing with a black. The damn country is gun mad and that surplus Pentagon military stuff goes to the polce shows the juvenile mindset in the USA. Oh the police will just love it. So in the paragon of freedom and stuff you can get away with anything in uniform and what passes for law is a joke. Thes trigger happy cops no doubt just loved playing at soldiers I bet.
Decades ago you could get away with burning black churches and homes, hanging them but now it has been modernised into a shoot response for anything especially if you are black. This only epitomises what is really the land of the free and home of the brave. So face down a policeman or even attack him and instead of being arrested or using a baton or even a taser (which many carry) just gun the person downm. What a damnable and sick country that thinks this ios lawful. The Smiley red neck attitude doesn't care a damn but it says much to the world about too many trigger happy cops and militarised police forces along with new military equipment and even the army on the streets! What a hellhole that compromises what it claims to stand for. You are probably also the world's top jailin place as well. When I once had a minor confrontation with a New York cop in a short disagreement maybe I stayed alive as I was white.
Despicable military police state over there. Despicable police actions all the time is an understatement.
The laws in the US are written to effectively give police immunity. Unlike regular citizens, with police shootings you have to prove that the police acted purposefully in a malicious manner.
Things reached fever pitch when Seattle police officer Ian Birk shot and killed John T. Williams, an unarmed Native American woodcarver. Williams was walking on a downtown Seattle street, tool in hand. As he crossed the street in front of a police car, the officer got out, followed Williams and ordered him to drop his knife.
Just seven seconds later, when Williams failed to comply, the officer shot him multiple times. Later, that officer testified he felt threatened.
Like the shooting of Michael Brown, this case went to local and state authorities for review of possible criminal charges. In January 2011, a local inquest jury found that the officer was not in danger, and that Williams (who had hearing impairments) did not have adequate time to drop his knife.
But a majority of jurors also found that the officer did believe Williams was a threat. They made this seemingly contradictory ruling because the state sets a very high legal burden for prosecuting police. Under state law, the prosecutor must prove an officer acted with malice and without a good faith belief the shooting was justified. There was insufficient evidence to meet that standard, so the local state prosecutor determined state charges could not be brought.
After looking at the facts, we concluded that we couldn’t bring criminal civil rights charges. Federal law sets a very high bar, and essentially requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an officer intended to deprive a person of his civil rights. Evidence that an officer feared for his life or acted according to training could defeat such a case. It is exceedingly difficult to prove such specific motivation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/24/as-a-federal-prosecutor-i-know-how-hard-it-is-to-convict-officers-like-darren-wilson/?hpid=z3
Which is why in overwhelming cases police shootings are not prosecuted. And if you do have some evidence of the above the evidence to the Grand Jury can be tailored to not meet the proof needed for prosecution.
Its like the James Bond license to kill.
So of you assault a cop in America you can expect to be dead? This the country that marches across the world going on about honour, rights, and all the usual tripe.
Goodness, Rj, I know that you can distinguish between a country and a handful of cops. And you do know the difference between that policeman and all policemen.
Your disregard for the US is showing through mightily.
Quote from Jochie
Which is why in overwhelming cases police shootings are not prosecuted. And if you do have some evidence of the above the evidence to the Grand Jury can be tailored to not meet the proof needed for prosecution.
Its like the James Bond license to kill.
Why police are rarely indicted for misconduct
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/ferguson-police-misconductdarrenwilsongrandjury.html (http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/11/ferguson-police-misconductdarrenwilsongrandjury.html)
Well i do like Americans but the system is something else. The trouble with your police IS the lack of control and the unwillingness to challenge them so over decades the pilce have gradually had an inbuilt arrogance of their own self-importance. When I watched the interview with the murder cop from Ferguson it was enough to make one sick. How in anyone's name can an officer justify shooting 6 bullets in "defence"? This is happening every week everywhere over there. Don't know why they have a truncheon and tazers or those gas things as the first inclination is to shoot and not just one bullet but several. That a political and what passes for a legal system says it is okay for a cop to shoot 6 times in defence is not only immoral but a castigating stain. The other two cases. I knew before it went to that Grand Jury joke the murderer would get off because it IS part of the system. There is a built-in attitude that a policeman is special, is the law and if he has to fire then fair enough. But time after time the gun could have been avoided and when it has to be used several times? Come on now. You could see in that interview the built-in self-belief that automatically using a gun is the first thing not anything less lethal. The hard fact that beatings, killings are so damn regular says that you folk have an indepth police problem. Like another thread here it is providing a racial steretype that is not progressive, mature or even morally decent. Constant and regular incidents only emphasise what I say. Give them a badge and uniform and they think they can do what they damn like. No, on second thoughts it is built in that they have the right and that pathetic law system is frightened to annoy the police.
Rest in peace Jesse James the legals have learned from you.
Well i do like Americans but the system is something else. The trouble with your police IS the lack of control and the unwillingness to challenge them so over decades the pilce have gradually had an inbuilt arrogance of their own self-importance.
You over-generalize. Surely, that applies in some cases, but not so for the two policemen in my family who never killed anybody or beat someone senseless.
Having relations who are police officers does not negate the fact that there are far too many regular killings by city police forces. It leans towards a sidestep and every week somewhere in the country. The three incidents in the last week or so in Ferguson, the 12 year old in the playground and that man on the stairs were disusting. It now seems that the officer who went to the playgrond actually opened fire within seconds of being there. The cop who shot that man on the stairs in front of his wife (for what) was an innocent killed on being seen. His police chief doesn't know why that man was killed and stated the victim wass totally innocnetThat your legal system or what passes for one is right behind that gun slinger cop in Ferguson who fires 6 shots? Watching him oin television staying he had no conscience and would do it again as that was how he was trained??! Time after time the first instinct is to gun someone down. As it happened that brain dead Ferguson cop was the same build as the victim and now it is okay if you feel threatened to pump 6 bullets into someone. That it is a national thing shows a deep flaw in police training and in the law.
Wear a police uniform and you can go on a killing spree and the law backs you and shows there is a problem. With all these surplus military vehicles and semi-army uniforms they have got damn carried away with their own self-importance and enjoy playing soldiers. Time after time unarmed people getting gunned down or beaten to a pulp by a squad. That hardly any policemen ever get done for what they do just shows there is a problem across the country even if you have relations as intimated are decent. The picture to the world is hardly enhancing, confrontational and too many cops above the law (along with 2,500 soldiers on the streets!
It is sad and being so regular there is a deep problem in too many towns.
RJH, your complaint that this happens all the time is at fault.
Do you know why these stories are in the news? It's because they don't happen all the time. It happens too frequently-- but still rare enough to be news.
News 101: If a dog bites a man, it's not worthy of the front page. Dogs have bitten men for a long time, not news. If a man bites a dog-- it goes on the front page. If a man shoots a dog with an AR15-- it'll make the nightly news for a week. If the dog shoots back--- CNN will provide 24/7 coverage for a month.
Sadly true. It's known as the CNN malady.
[move]ALL THE NEWS THAT'S NOT FIT TO PRINT.[/move]
No sadly you are wrong there mjsmsprt. They do happen weekly or fortnightly somehwere in the country and Ferguson stood out because that young fool who is supposed to be "trained" shot 12 times and pumped 6 bullets into the person concerned. The matter of the man with his wife shot on stairs and whom I said was totally innocent according to the police chief and the 12 year-old were all in the same general period. Shoot to iill seems to be the training not wounding in the leg or something but just bullet them. Still dancing going on about not usijng tasers or spray cannisters which says something else over there. Army vehicles and equipment all up the street for too many police forces and the police know that time after time when there is a challenging death they will always get away with it time after tiring time. The legal system is also a joke.
Maybe that arrogant Ferguson officer could go to Afghanistan with his "experience" and be like the marines who repeatedly shot up innocents and weddings. Or maybe the Blackwater lot (name changed) who got away with killing people. And maybe you should ask yourself why the FBI have quietly let the order to list the statistics of police killings for the whole country to not happen. Obviously there will be times when the police have to shoot (although wounding would be better) but it only shows there is a problem when these stats are not being got as instructed. Because of such the situation is as plain as it could be. Police know they can just blow someone away because they always get away with it. There is a police internal attitude and it is time you faced it.
I just can't resist a "gimme" like this one.
I browse Reddit on occasion, and found this gem that just happens to fit sooooo perfectly here. RJHowie, this IS what will happen more and more if you disarm the American public and leave all the guns in the hands of police and military. Unchecked (and uncheckable) power in the hands of the few never comes to a good end.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWt0ObgK.jpg&hash=f953033ffb1576861abd3ad80c6e93f5" rel="cached" data-hash="f953033ffb1576861abd3ad80c6e93f5" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/Wt0ObgK.jpg)
It sounds funny at first glance, but since police in the UK typically do not carry firearms it's clearly a false dichotomy.
It sounds funny at first glance, but since police in the UK typically do not carry firearms it's clearly a false dichotomy.
...and why there are so few gun murders in the UK because neither policemen and citizens have guns.
It'll be a long time, but there will be a day when the Supreme Court will change direction on gun ownership.
The U.S. will still have the right to bare arms, though.
I'm waiting for when we finally figure out that militarizing the police is a really bad idea. I may be waiting awhile though.
Problem: the powers-that-be became so frightened of terrorism that they're in danger of creating a far worse problem.
Oh yeah, then there's this:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fe1FDWPf.jpg&hash=765f127395cd098c3a511de88a86d6d0" rel="cached" data-hash="765f127395cd098c3a511de88a86d6d0" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/e1FDWPf.jpg)
Of course, in this case you'd have to say "when the police becomes both".
The U.S. will still have the right to bare arms, though.
Ooh, sexy. :P
It would be a far better country if it wasn't so damn brained into this late 18th/early 19th century right to bear arms baloney. In addition it would be great if the police could be nationally relied on but it certainly isn't. Protecting the people is just a saying and in practice they have almost special unofficial rights in a sense. Too often killing is the first intention not wounding or anything else. With guns being such damn playthings and any excuse for having them the nation has developed a police philosophy that they are somehow special and can get away with any damn thing and say they are defending the law. Such a stance is immature and fraught with all sorts of problems and as I made clear think they can get away with any damn thing because time after time they do. Of course there always good officers who do not think themselves some fraternity that is untouchable but the national psyche is something else.
Sweet Land of Liberty.
We
like love our Constitution, we
like love our Guns, & we
like [glow=red,2,300]
respect our police [/glow] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKt5dfjKUko) ....
We love America the way she is, come hell or high water, & we wouldn't have it any other way.
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKt5dfjKUko[/VIDEO]
[glow=blue,2,300]Michael Brown was a Thug .....
Killin' any bad guy is a good thing ...
Any dead thug is a good thing ...
Michael Brown is a dead Thug .....
God Bless "The Thin Blue Line" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKt5dfjKUko) ....
For Washing Our Streets of the Scum ....
For Protecting America the Best They Can ......
[/glow]
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FxW9T7bb.jpg&hash=1f5e11284c1f1c6080f8af08699f702a" rel="cached" data-hash="1f5e11284c1f1c6080f8af08699f702a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/xW9T7bb.jpg)
A Blue Laser Beam is projected at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The Thin Blue Line (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKt5dfjKUko)
Sweet Land of Liberty.
We like love our guns, we like love our Constitution, & we like love our police .... We love it the way it is, & we wouldn't have it any other way.
So, RJ
Kiss my IRA Lovin' Sweet Irish Ass, ...... There ain't nothin' you can do about it, except exercising your right to complain to deaf ears!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif) (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FTongue%2Fmockery-035.gif&hash=9fef650157e4de1e0349602261c64dd3" rel="cached" data-hash="9fef650157e4de1e0349602261c64dd3" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Tongue/mockery-035.gif)
[glow=blue,2,300]Michael Brown was a Thug .....
Killin' a bad guy is a good thing ...
One more dead thug is a good thing ...
Michael Brown is a dead Thug .....
God Bless "The Thin Blue Line" ....
For Washing Our Streets of the Scum ....
[/glow]
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FxW9T7bb.jpg&hash=1f5e11284c1f1c6080f8af08699f702a" rel="cached" data-hash="1f5e11284c1f1c6080f8af08699f702a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/xW9T7bb.jpg)
A blue laser beam was projected at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C.
.......Too often killing is the first intention not wounding or anything else.......
Professional STS Instructors teach to use deadly force for survival, not specifically to kill.
If death happens to be the unfortunate (for the assailant) outcome, as long as your objective is met (neutralizing the assailant, & survival) it's an acceptable outcome.
I've participated in many, many police training sessions & seminars across America during my former professional career.
I've trained many police officers personally with Special Tactical Services, as my instructors/employees have, & never once have I found --- nor will you --- any training facility that will train anyone on
'shooting to wound'. It's not done, never has been done, nor will it probably ever be done.
Everyone, professionally or personally, being trained in using a firearm/handgun for self-defense is taught to place as many shots center-mass as necessary to totally neutralize the threat........period, end of story.
If the assailant lives, so be it.
If the assailant dies, so be it.
Your objective in using deadly force is not to make any determination on any specific outcome, but to do whatever is necessary to eliminate/neutralize the assailant as soon as humanly possible.
An arm, or a hand, or a leg is an
extremely low-percentage target, & if you were lucky enough to successfully hit any of those targets, it most probably wouldn't neutralize the assailant.
Center-mass on the other hand is a
very high-percentage target due to it's size, & because it contains many vital organs. A Center-mass hit has the best potential to neutralize the assailant, & being that is the desired objective of using deadly force, it is what
all trainees are trained to fire at.
I dare you to find any Professional STS Instructor, worth his or her salt, that will train otherwise ---- either to private individuals, or to Law Enforcement Professionals.
BTW .......... The terminology I've used (STS or Special Tactical Services) are not now, & have never been, associated in any way with STS Special Tactical Services, LLC located in Virginia, USA, founded in 2000, which is entirely an entity unto itself.
I've never owned, been part owner, nor have I ever had any financial interest whatsoever in STS Special Tactical Services, LLC.
I've used these specific terms in the past, & have been doing so for over 30 years to describe a certain style of tactical training for mostly, but not limited to, personal & private concerns.
My usage of these terms is purely coincidental.
Shoot to wound? Can you be SURE of that outcome?
Suppose you shoot a person in the leg. Should be a wounding rather than a killing shot, right? Uh huh. Hit the femoral artery. and the victim is dead for all practical purposes before he falls down. Of course it's long odds against you hitting that artery, but still possible-- and if you do, your wounding shot just became deadly.
Of course, this even assumes the person you shot has normal clotting ability--- bad luck if he/she is a bleeder either because of disease or because of some drug he/she may be on. In that case--- once again, a "wounding shot" becomes seriously deadly.
RJ, you talk as a man who has never been in a serious situation. Everybody I know who has been in a serious issue-- especially where it becomes a shooting issue-- knows you don't shoot to wound. You might fire off a warning shot--- after that, you're shooting to stop the other person, and it escalates beyond trying to wound rather quickly after that.
Besides, any hunter will tell you that an animal is never so dangerous as he is when he is either trapped or wounded. Men are much the same way. A man you've wounded who isn't properly stopped will be out to kill you, make no mistake about it.
..... RJ, you talk as a man who has never been in a serious situation. Everybody I know who has been in a serious issue-- especially where it becomes a shooting issue-- knows you don't shoot to wound. You might fire off a warning shot--- after that, you're shooting to stop the other person, and it escalates beyond trying to wound rather quickly after that......
I can't agree more.
Seems though that over on the other side of the pond they see it completely upside-down, & bass-ackwards.
They, as RJ, believe everything can be settled with a spank, or over a spot of tea.
No need for Draconian measures, no!
Be civilized, shoot only twice as your assailant is charging you.
Any more shots than that would amount to being grossly negligent --- using excessive force, & by all means only aim for the outside parts of a limb, never anywhere it might cause serious harm, after all it's only cricket if you give him a fair go!
Surprisingly, it seems RJ isn't in tune with some of his fellow, more intelligent Britons. Those that actually have a need to know.
The PFOA in the UK.The PFOA has been created to support all those involved in firearms operations, and their families. It is managed by serving and retired police officers with many years experience in this field. We offer a unique package of support for officers and their families, which is supported by ACPO Firearms, The Police Federation of England & Wales, and The Superintendents Association. We are a non political, not for profits Association.They rather think RJ's
TV fantasy-land approach, 'shooting to wound', is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
[glow=blue,2,300]Shooting to Wound [/glow]
Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
Force Science re-states its case in light of recent "no-kill bill" proposal
A special report from the Force Science Institute
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn't they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
As reported in Force Science News, New York state Senator David Paterson [D.-Harlem] pondered those questions in 2006 and concluded that officers were needlessly killing suspects. In response, he introduced legislation that would require officers to try to shoot offenders' limbs instead of targeting locations that would more likely stop the threat but could also result in death. Paterson proposed that any officer who employed more than the minimum force necessary to stop a life-threatening suspect be charged with felony manslaughter. Law enforcement exploded in protest and Paterson withdrew the bill.
But the battle isn't over.
The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill."
"When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it's very often 'Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?'" Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson's proposed legislation. "When civilians judge police shooting deaths-on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community-this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
"In reality, this thinking is a result of 'training by Hollywood,' in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director's dramatic interests. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers."
Vice President Joe Biden agrees. When Michael Paladino, president of New York's Detectives Endowment Association, showed him the bill he reportedly scoffed and suggested that it be called the "John Wayne Bill" because of the unrealistic, movie-like sharpshooting skills it demands of officers.
In light of this resurfacing of misguided "shoot-to-wound" thinking, Force Science News is reissuing a "position paper," originally introduced following Paterson's '06 proposed legislation, that discusses why shooting to wound versus shooting to stop is neither practical nor desirable as a performance standard. We hope this information proves useful to you in addressing any shoot-to-wound advocacy that may arise in your jurisdiction.
PRACTICAL ISSUES.
Robinson and Towns' bill was drafted in the wake of the controversial shooting of Sean Bell who died after New York officers fired a total of 50 rounds at him and two other men. Sen. Paterson said his proposed legislation in '06 was motivated by the fatal shooting in New York City of Amadou Diallo, who was struck by 19 bullets when officers mistakenly thought he was reaching for a weapon as they approached him for questioning. Paterson believed that shooting an arm or leg would tend to stop a suspect's threatening actions, precluding the need to shoot to the head or chest, where death is more probable. By requiring only the least amount of force needed to control a suspect he apparently hoped to reduce the likelihood of "excessive" shots being fired.
Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions. Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:
"Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.
"The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.
"There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.
"Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.
"The upper arms move more slowly than the lower arms and hands. But shooting at the upper arms, there's a greater chance you're going to hit the suspect's brachial artery or center mass, areas with a high probability of fatality. So where does shooting only to wound come in when even areas considered by some to 'safe' from fatality risk could in fact carry the same level of risk as targeting center mass?
"Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who's hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.
"On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect's legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender's hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn't necessarily been stopped."
As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:
"Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.
"Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.
"A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.
"While an officer is noticing this change, he is going to continue firing if he is shooting as fast as he can under the stress of trying to save his life. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.
"Shooting beyond the moment a threat is neutralized is not a willful, malicious action in most cases. It's an involuntary factor of human dynamics.
"Given what science tells us about armed encounters, this most recent proposal is a fantasy, just like Paterson's legislation before it. They would hold officers to super-human performance and punish them criminally for being unable to achieve it."
LEGAL ISSUES.
A shoot-to-wound mandate would "not be valid legally" because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.
Recognizing that violent encounters are "tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving," the Court "does not require officers to use the least intrusive method" of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but "only what's reasonable," Chudwin explains. When an officer's life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.
By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. "The law has never broken these two apart," Chudwin says, which is what these proposals have tried to do. "The politicians who propose this kind of legislation are saying that police should only shoot someone just a little bit. Deadly force is not about 'just a little bit.' Any time you fire a firearm, there's a substantial risk of great bodily harm or death. The law doesn't even so much as suggest that deadly force should be just enough to wound but with no probability of death. That's plain wrong legally and tactically, and sends the wrong message."
Attorney Bill Everett, a former risk-management executive, use-of-force instructor, former LEO, and Force Science National Advisory Board member, agrees. As he explains it, use of force from a legal standpoint is a matter of "proportionality," and there are two ways to measure it: what's necessary and what's reasonable.
He draws the analogy of a house being on fire. "Firefighters can pour what seems at the time to be about the right amount of water on it to stop the fire versus not using one drop more of water than necessary, even in hindsight, to put the fire out." The former fits the "reasonable" approach, the latter is the "necessary" perspective and is the essence of the shoot-to-wound/minimal force bill.
"When you impose a standard of strict necessity, you require officers to do a whole lot of thinking in a situation where the Supreme Court recognizes there's not a whole lot of time to think in," Everett declares. Under a shoot-to-wound directive, "an officer faced with a suspect running at him with a jagged bottle is expected to think about getting target acquisition on an arm or a leg, while his own life is at risk." The hesitation it is likely to create will only heighten his risk.
The critical issue of officer survival aside, Everett predicts that the kind of legislation proposed would "substantially expand the civil and criminal liability of police officers." He asks, "What if an officer tries to wing a suspect and ends up hitting an innocent bystander? What about the liability there? What if an officer tries to shoot an offender's limb but shoots him in the chest instead? How does his true intent get judged?
"Right now under the Supreme Court's prevailing standard lawyers and judges in a large percentage of police shootings can look at the facts and conclude that there is no basis for allowing a civil suit to go to trial. But if you change the standard, there'll be a lot more cases going to juries to evaluate: 1) did the officer intend to wound or did he intend to kill the suspect and 2) was the suspect's death absolutely necessary. A trial will become the rule rather than the exception.
"Who in their right mind would become a police officer in a jurisdiction where shoot-to- wound and standards of strict necessity became the law? Those ideas may have some humanitarian appeal, but once you go beyond the Disneyish attraction and face the reality, support for this thinking has to evaporate."
TACTICAL ISSUES.
Modern training teaches that when an officer uses deadly force the intent should be to stop the suspect's threatening behavior as fast as possible.
In the words of firearms trainer Ron Avery, himself a championship shooter, head of the Practical Shooting Academy and a member of the Force Science Technical Advisory Board, shooting for an assailant's center mass is usually considered the most effective first option because the upper torso combines a concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels within the body's largest target. "When the risk of failure is death, an officer needs the highest percentage chance of success he can get," Everett notes.
Shooting instead for a smaller, faster-moving arm or a leg with the intent to wound rather than to incapacitate invites a myriad of tactical dilemmas.
For instance:
• An officer's survival instinct may exert an overpowering influence on target selection. "I don't care how good a shot you are," says Avery, "if your life is threatened you're going to go for the surer thing first and worry about your assailant's life being saved second. If a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I'm going to be thinking is 'I'm going to shoot him in the arm.'" Hence, shooting for center mass may become a psychological default.
• Poor shot placement is bound to increase. Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss. Lewinski recalls a case he was involved in where an officer firing under high stress just 5 feet from an offender failed to hit him at all with the first 5 rounds and connected with the next four only because the suspect moved into his line of fire. "Hitting an arm or a leg on a moving suspect with surgical precision will be virtually impossible," Avery asserts. "I could probably count on one hand the individuals who can make that kind of shot under the pressure of their life on the line. Expecting that level of performance by police officers on an agency-wide basis is ludicrous." Misses may well go on to injure or kill someone else.
• Use of certain weapons might be discouraged. "Because of the spread pattern, an officer might be precluded from grabbing a shotgun, for fear of hitting more vital areas when he tries to shoot to wound," Everett speculates. "If the offender has a fully automatic weapon, say, should an officer be prevented from using the best defensive weapon he may have because it might have sweep or rise?"
• "Successful" shots could be dangerous to people besides the suspect because of through-and-through penetration. "Virtually every police round today is designed to penetrate heavy clothing and 10 to 12 inches of ballistic gel," explains Chudwin. "Rounds with that capability will penetrate even the biggest arms" and could, like misses, then travel on to hit unintended targets in the background.
• "Successful" shots that don't persuade an offender to quit leave the officer still in peril. When we know from street experience that even multiple center-mass hits don't always stop determined, deranged or drugged attackers, "how many officers would be murdered by offenders who get shot in a limb and are still fully capable of shooting back?" Chudwin asks. Indeed, Avery believes that shooting an offender without incapacitating him "may just infuriate him, so he doubles his effort to kill you. There is no dependable correlation between wounding someone and making them stop."
• "Shooting to wound reflects a misapplication of police equipment. "Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose," Avery says. "If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you're using the wrong tool for that job. Also if you shoot them in the arm or leg and you destroy muscle tissue, shatter bone or destroy nerve function you have maimed that person for life. Now attorneys can play the argument of 'cruel and unusual punishment' and pursue punitive damages for destroying the capacity of your 'victim' to earn wages and so on. You don't try to just wound people with a gun. Period."
The experts we consulted agreed that advocates who push a shoot-to-wound agenda appear to understand little about human dynamics, ballistics, tactics, force legalities or the challenges officers face on the street. Chudwin has found that these critics of police practices can often be enlightened if they are invited to experience force decision-making scenarios on a firearms simulator.
Avery has a more dramatic, if fanciful, idea. "Put them in a cage with a lion," he suggests. "Then let's see if they shoot to wound."
Put that in yer lil pink book, RJ (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey002.gif)
As it so happens, we had the head of the Critical Care Unit at one of the hospitals speak at our writer's group tonight. He mentioned that chest is likely to cause fatality, whereas a shot to the abomination is less likely to do so with the caveat that person might still die of infection.
Now for the irony, back in September suspects in Ferguson shot an officer in the arm (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/27/officer-shot-in-ferguson/16369999/). It doesn't take long to search for people being shot in the arms and legs and get ample results. So I have to disagree that it's almost impossible. While it's true that a suspect's arm or leg might move in the time it takes for the officer to fire, there's still a high probability that part of the limb will still be in the bullet's path. Therefore the shot will miss the exact spot aimed for, but will hit slightly above or below it. Before you answer, I'm not trying to debate you. Instead I'm wondering about this from the perspective of fiction writing. Say suspect is trying to shot the officer. The officer fires at the suspect's hand. The criminal's hand moves, so the officer's bullet hits the forearm. The suspect will be unable to fire his weapon, right? That's is unless the bullet merely grazed by. Of course, that scenario, it will be be hard to argue against the officer opting to shoot the suspect's chest with lethal intent. Situations like that are the reason why we call in professionals to the meetings.
As it so happens, we had the head of the Critical Care Unit at one of the hospitals speak at our writer's group tonight. He mentioned that chest is likely to cause fatality, whereas a shot to the abomination is less likely to do so with the caveat that person might still die of infection.
Is that because there's a higher chance of the bullet passing clean through instead of shattering any bones/ribs or simply because heart and lung damage is much more fatal?
It's because God protects the heart, the place where the soul lives. :heart:
:jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester::jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:
Instead of debating shoot to wound (which is not practical) or shoot to whatever, just train not to shoot. England with its mostly unarmed police manage.
Michael Brown’s death was part of a tragic and unacceptable pattern: Police officers in the United States shoot and kill civilians in shockingly high numbers. How many killings are there each year? No one can say for sure, because police departments don’t want us to know.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, in 2013 there were 461 “justifiable homicides” by police — defined as “the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty.” In all but three of these reported killings, officers used firearms.
The true number of fatal police shootings is surely much higher, however, because many law enforcement agencies do not report to the FBI database. Attempts by journalists to compile more complete data by collating local news reports have resulted in estimates as high as 1,000 police killings a year. There is no way to know how many victims, like Brown, were unarmed.
By contrast, there were no fatal police shootings in Great Britain last year. Not one. In Germany, there have been eight police killings over the past two years. In Canada — a country with its own frontier ethos and no great aversion to firearms — police shootings average about a dozen a year.
Is it too much to ask for the US police to be civilized or to be trained to become civilized as is in most first class countries?
Smiley said “we respect our police .... ”
That's very nice. But the reality is that police don't respect you, the civilian. Shouldn't respect be a two way street?
When our political masters decide demonstrations or political unrest is to be suppressed, the police will do so even when blatantly unconstitutional. They have no problem pounding you to settle “unrest.”
Look at the New York City republican party convention. The demonstrators were peaceful but convention organizers and goers felt uneasy. Mayor Bloomberg listened and told his police to get the demonstrators off the streets and keep them off the streets.
Normally, a demonstration with demonstrators blocking traffic are given a disorderly summons to appear in court, provided they have valid ID's. But in this case mass arrests were initiated by corralling demonstrators with moving barriers whereupon they were brought to an abandoned pier on the Hudson river and held. Even when the magistrates told the city to move them to the courts for disposition the police refused. They kept holding them. Finally they were moved when the city was told that police and city officials will be held in contempt and the city would be significantly fined for each demonstrator held illegally.
To initiate this action a meeting was help by the mayor's office, police officials and the city lawyers. The message from the Mayor was “get them off the streets. Don't worry about constitutional issues. The city counsel will take care of legal issues.”
When all was said and done the demonstrators were kept off the streets without the opportunity to get counsel or a court arraignment hearing, causing a chilling effect on subsequent demonstrations. Subsequently charges were dropped and years later millions were paid to demonstrators who were illegally held. A cost of doing business. New York City pays about 200 million every year due to police malfeasance.
Another example of police respect. The bicyclist was charged with assault and resisting arrest. Were it not for the video he would have been found guilty:
http://gothamist.com/2008/07/28/cop_caught_on_video_assaulting_cycl.php
So, Smiley, tell me again about respect.
Sometimes it helps to understand POV. Smiley is an ex-military man, a former sniper. His POV is formed by this, so he'll be very much pro-police in a case like this. Some guy who's been pushed around his whole life by the authorities might see things a little differently. He wouldn't have a pro-police POV, since his experience is constant looking over your shoulder-- especially when police are around, because his experience is that police are NOT your friend.
Some police take their oath of office seriously. Some police use their uniform and badge to push other people around. I've seen both. So, I'm not fully in Smiley's camp. Bad cops certainly exist, and the "code" protects them longer than it should.
Local case: Bolingbrook, Illinois is less than 20 miles from here. A policeman got away with murdering his third wife for awhile, the authorities ruled the death an accident when the woman somehow drowned in a dry bathtub. He woulda got away with it if his 4th wife hadn't disappeared, causing authorities to re-open the case of the 3rd wife. Turned out it WAS murder, surprise surprise.
Now, if any man who is NOT a policeman had something like this happen-- your estranged wife is found supposedly drowned in a dry bathtub-- exactly how long do you think it takes before you're led away in handcuffs? Right. You know the sun won't go down that day before you're charged with her murder. She's dead under suspicious circumstances, you're the estranged husband--- you're suspect numero uno unless something truly remarkable happens in the meantime. That guy got away with it for as long as he did because he was a cop. He might still be getting away with it if something hadn't happened-- we still don't know what-- to his 4th wife.
So in Smilet's mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is! As for his stance that "we respect our police" (totally seemingly) that is a case of anything in a uniform can do what he likes. The military and police are getting far too close in America and not a good sign. All this nonsense of army weaponry and army vehicles is over the top nonsense and it gives the world a picture of the country that is beyond his common sense. And anyway he is a terrorist supporter so morality is lost somewhere in his world. That we effectively cannot assess the number of police killings says something very iffy and that killing someone or simply shooting at the first opportunity is semi-regular does not give any sensible person an open house that the organisation is A1. Two of the incidents I detailed were without any discussion just kill the person. That there are so many over there who see this as normal is a terrible blight on the country and shocking.
Is it too much to ask for the US police to be civilized or to be trained to become civilized as is in most first class countries?
Firstly, acting civilized can only be a reflection of present day civilization.
The police are not trained to be uncivilized, they are trained to deal with the the class of criminals that exist today, & how they act directly reflects that.
A demonstrator throwing a garbage pail through a store's plate glass window is most probably going to be treated the same as someone that just beat up a 80 year old woman after viciously raping her in the street.
But, back to your very thoughtful suggestion.
"Is it too much to ask for the US police to be civilized or to be trained to become civilized as is in most first class countries"I think it could be plausible/doable under one (1) condition ------ under the proviso that say a short period has passed where the criminals have themselves demonstrated that they will be
courteous & respectful as you put it,
'civilized'. Until then, expect nothing, for that's exactly what you'll get.
So in Smiley's mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is! As for his stance that "we respect our police" (totally seemingly) that is a case of anything in a uniform can do what he likes.
'Shooting to wound' is something you can only expect to see on your favorite
'cops & robbers' TV show, or in a movie direct from Hollywood.
Anyone actually knowledgeable on the subject, as attested to here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=472.msg30572#msg30572), will most probably suggest that all the cheese has simply slid off yer cracker!
But hey,
RJ .............. why don't you put your money where your mouth is??!! I'm callin' you out here & now --- enough of your fantasy minded cock & bull!
Show us the training programs you know of first hand that does teach it's officers to
'shoot to wound'.
The way you're running off with the mouth, they must be a 'dime a dozen'!?
Please, direct us to the specific training policy, from anywhere in the world, that supports just that ----
Supports a 'Shoot to Wound' Training Policy.We'd all be enjoying a good, legitimate read, rather that your usual bloviated fiction.
I'll even help you ........ Start
here (http://bit.ly/15O4DV1)
RJ old man ,,,,,,, It's time ta shit, or get off the pot -- no more excuses!
Is that because there's a higher chance of the bullet passing clean through instead of shattering any bones/ribs or simply because heart and lung damage is much more fatal?
Heart and lung damage and the presence of major blood vessels.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.picturesdepot.com%2Fphoto%2Fc%2Fcardiovascular_system_diagram-13158.gif&hash=9a9793a32a221d3078d431553f672e86" rel="cached" data-hash="9a9793a32a221d3078d431553f672e86" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://images.picturesdepot.com/photo/c/cardiovascular_system_diagram-13158.gif)
His POV is formed by this, so he'll be very much pro-police in a case like this. Some guy who's been pushed around his whole life by the authorities might see things a little differently
What's happening is that we're getting entire communities that feel pushed around by police. The mistake is thinking that the riots in Ferguson where all about Micheal Brown. He was merely the match lit next to the stockpile of dynamite ready to explode as it was.
Heart and lung damage and the presence of major blood vessels.
Right. What I failed to mention is that I seem to recall hearing that the lung/blood vessel issue is exacerbated by the chance of bone splinters and such in case a rib or some such is hit. Sorry, my memory's a bit foggy on the subject matter. :P
So in Smiley's mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is! As for his stance that "we respect our police" (totally seemingly) that is a case of anything in a uniform can do what he likes.
'Shooting to wound' is something you can only expect to see on your favorite 'cops & robbers' TV show, or in a movie direct from Hollywood.
Anyone actually knowledgeable on the subject, as attested to here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=472.msg30572#msg30572), will most probably suggest that all the cheese has simply slid off yer cracker!
But hey, RJ .............. why don't you put your money where your mouth is??!!
I'm callin' you out here & now --- enough of your fantasy minded cock & bull!
Show us the training programs you know of first hand that does teach it's officers to 'shoot to wound'.
The way you're running off with the mouth, they must be a 'dime a dozen'!?
Please, direct us to the specific training policy, from anywhere in the world, that supports just that ---- Supports a 'Shoot to Wound' Training Policy.
We'd all be enjoying a good, legitimate read, rather that your usual bloviated fiction.
I'll even help you ........ Start here (http://bit.ly/15O4DV1)
RJ old man ,,,,,,, It's time ta shit, or get off the pot -- no more excuses!
Still looking RJ??
Yer BS come home like chickens ta the roost ole man? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Ya might find a place where they
'shoot to wound' here (http://bit.ly/1CGjqQ8) or here (http://bit.ly/1CGkuni) or most certainly here (http://bit.ly/1CGnpfC) .......
I wonder how many in our small community have faced a situation where another human is intent on killing us. A situation faced by any policeman on any day, without warning.
For the record, it has happened to me only once in a lifetime, and I handled it badly.
I, too, would be astonished to hear of any training that advocates "shooting to wound".
I was in a situation once that involved violence and a cop. Before anything went down, the cop told me to leave, which I did quickly.
I spent 8+ years in harms way in Vietnam.
There were over 10 times when we were hand to hand with the enemy, & being I'm here to tell you about it, it didn't go too well for those I (we) tangled with.
What I learned to do, what I was extensively trained to do, I became extremely good at.
After 3 years of Special Forces duty I went into specialized Sniper training.
I spent the next 5 years perfecting my craft, & the last 2 years of my Ranger life I spent as a specialist behind enemy lines eliminating any & all targets assigned to me.
To make a long story short, for all those years there always were people out there intent on killing me.
Fortunately, they never succeeded.
Words could never explain how that felt, & that's why I can empathize with those in Law Enforcement.
I know there are always a rotten apple here, & a few rotten apples there, but for the 99+% of them I've dealt with, they were some of the most honest, & genuine people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.
Every single day they were willing to put their lives on the line, on the line for people they didn't even know.
Serve, protect, & defend.
That's their calling, & it takes a special kind of person to take up that line of commitment where the unspoken question is .....
will I see tomorrow?
Jimbro, there's
always so much back-story… (Hey!
tt92, you might get to meet
Jaybro!)
I was in a situation once that involved violence and a cop. Before anything went down, the cop told me to leave, which I did quickly.
This is a story that I probably should "write"… But what the hell.
First, let me mention that a friend asked me to help push a car down the street… The cops came and asked me, Was I trying to steal it! I told them (detectives in the local constabulary) that I wasn't. (I was under-age; and I wasn't… I didn't know. My "friends" were, too; but were…)
Perhaps a story might help explain what I mean?
Hippies were everywhere! Nobody yet knew what to make of them.
They seemed innocuous: They grew their hair long, didn't bathe, and wouldn't work; yet they wanted to be "seated at the table." Why?
I'd gone "home" and stayed too long (You know: Talking to family.): My curfew was 11pm. (I was "privileged," to be enrolled in the Harvard Upward Bound program…)
I met a fellow whom I'd (thought) I'd known for many years, and asked if I could "crash" at his place… (He
almost married the O'-
Irish-surname sister that had always enticed me! And she had -sometimes- talked to
me: The last thing she'd said to me about him was a reference to the newly popular pop-top soda cans: "Little spout!"
At any rate, he said "Sure. Come home with me." I did.
(Not unusual, he had a twin bed. —There's a whole 'nother story, or two, connected to people I knew back then; and the bizarre ways they viewed the world.)
We got into his bed. I thought I'd go to sleep; but he said, "I like to play with
balls… You'll let me?" He said he learned it in the Marine Corps… (The last guy who wanted to look at my weiner also claimed to be a Marine…) I said "No."
He hesitated and then said "I can
make you!"
(He was right: He could!)
I mentioned that I'd heard his mother come in; how, I asked him, would he explain to
her, a cry of
rape! from her son's bedroom?
So, I went back out into the street.
When I got close to my dorm… I was chased by the police (plain-clothes) into a hotel (they said, "You'd better run…!" I did.)
There was a phalanx of Cambridge cops (reserve, and wanna-be…), eight across Brattle Street.
I got me to my safe haven; and slept.
What really happened?
I perused Harvard Square the next morning: Tear gas canisters, stuff burned; store windows broken, stuff stolen — mostly, people took stuff; broke doors and windows, and -whatever they wanted that they could reach- they took.
That's what usually happens, when there's a "riot".
What was that "Marine" thing?
I don't know. (And -truth be told- I don't want to.) Two Marines from my neighborhood were "not exactly 'poofs' — but liked…"
Well, they liked abusing others.
Is there a way of educating children, that convinces them that they needn't…?
I just got into an argument with a relative about the Staten Island "incident"… My "take" is simple (I think): Depraved indifference… Please high-light "depraved". The idea that an officer's aim to arrest an individual (for whatever reason) justifies lethal force is — well, depraved.
While I think there was no intent to kill the "suspect," there was a dis-connect between the officers' sworn duty and their actions: Howie's "police psychology" trope become reality…
You know what charges I'd have expected.
Instead, we got a worst-case swerve! (I'm using RJ's terminology…)
[Forget the movie… Read Elmore Leonard''s book Valdez Is Coming. To me, this is what American law enforcement is meant to be, at its best.
And we should guage all against "the best" — shouldn't we?]
Serve, protect, & defend.
And strangle people to death. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-03/nyc-cop-avoids-choking-death-charge-renewing-ferguson-outrage#p1)
A white New York City police officer accused of killing a black man with a chokehold avoided indictment, triggering new protests over police use of force a week after a Missouri grand jury cleared a white officer there in the shooting death of an unarmed black teen.
Grand jurors on New York’s Staten Island reached their decision today after months of testimony in the death of Eric Garner, Richmond County District Attorney Daniel M. Donovan Jr. said. Garner, 43, died July 17 after plain clothes officers led by Daniel Pantaleo sought to handcuff him, forcing him to the ground so they could arrest him for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes.
The officer's supervisor was also present and is black, so it seems unlikely that there was a racial motive. Some would seek to proved that Garner was indeed selling untaxed cigarettes and was less than an angel himself, as is the usual pattern of some conservatives in trying to put the dead on trial after incidents like this. That's immaterial, because what Garner might have been doing didn't warrant a death sentence and very often the dead in cases like this didn't need to die, regardless of they actually committed the crime they're accused of or not.
One report after another of unarmed African-Americans dead at the hands of the police rightly or wrongly creates the impression that minorities are targeted for death more readily than whites. The fact Pantaleo's supervisor is also black doesn't change that another black man died for a trivial crime that would have only resulted in a short stay in the county lock-up (if not merely a fine.) The fact that the chokehold that resulted in Garner's death is prohibited by NYCPD regulations should have resulted in an indictment. The fact that it didn't causes people, especially minorities, to loss faith and trust in the criminal justice system.
If this prosecutor had wanted an indictment, he would have gotten one,” said Randolph M. McLaughlin, a civil rights attorney and professor at Pace Law School in White Plains, New York. “I believe it’s difficult for local prosecutors to prosecute the very police officers who they depend on to be witnesses in their own cases. One of the problems with the whole process is that the grand jury process is the only process in America where an elected official can do things in private and no one can see what he does.”
.....
“Like millions of New Yorkers, I am saddened by the grand jury’s decision not to indict in the Eric Garner case,” New York City Public Advocate Letitia James said in a statement. “Video footage of the incident clearly shows the banned chokehold that resulted in Mr. Garner’s death and the fact that there will be no public trial is shocking and unconscionable.”
Of course, there are those that defend Pantaleo.
Patrick J. Lynch, president of the city’s police union, said Pantaleo’s intention was to “do nothing more” than take Garner into custody and only used a “take-down technique” he learned in training.
It seems absurd that the police academy teaches techniques that banned because they kill suspects, especially those in as poor of physical condition as Garner was (obesity, high blood pressure, asthma, cardiovascular disease.) But assuming Lynch is correct, there seems to be a serious problem in officer training. Are officers being trained to use deadly force, or in the case of Garner, methods that are actually banned for good reason? If Lynch is correct in this, it's not actually the fault of individual officers such as Pantaleo. It's the system that's broken.
The article go through other incidents, such the death of a security guard that cops mistook for a drug dealer. Or even more brilliantly, shot a man 41 times for pulling out his wallet (most likely at the officers' request.)
I can't help but recall Smiley complaining of a man arrested for having a gun in seat when he was pulled over. Those that called "Second Amendment rights!" should have instead been thankful that suspect even survived the incident. The
Las Vegas Review Journal and the local Fox station would have reported that he fired on the officer first, despite there being no evidence to that fact :P The other stations and the
Las Vegas Sun would reported the incident correctly and it would have been called "liberal bias."
How about -Sang- we recognize the real problem: Today's young cops think they're correctional officers, and that we're all of us inmates — subject to their control?
You always seem to go over-board… Now, I've just done so! But my diving off the boat seems, to me, more reasonable.
(At least, I think I know in which direction the shore is… :) )
I'd agree that Garner (who, I'm given to understand, was actually known to one of the officers…which makes this case even more egregious!) was unnecessarily detained… (Had he been selling individual joints, he'd have been ticketed. No?) I can think of no reason why he'd have needed to be handcuffed.
A simple "Hey, Bigs! You're under arrest. Get in the back of the car" should have sufficed. And, if he ran: How far would he have got before he collapsed? (I don't mean to make light of the situation. But - seriously…) Some people don't -IMNTB-too-HO- understand what constitutes authority…
The "choke-hold" trope is a red herring, BTW.
I'll save you the trouble of re-reading (or remembering — since it was so long ago…): The real problem: Today's young cops think they're correctional officers, and that we're all of us inmates — subject to their control?
And strangle people to death. (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-12-03/nyc-cop-avoids-choking-death-charge-renewing-ferguson-outrage#p1)
Ooooooppps. Mistakes suck, don't they... All that exerted energy, & the guy dies too..... Sometimes ya can't catch a break.
Next time I bet that Officer will go it a bit easier. Ya think he's sweatin' out a possible Fed Indictment too?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/smileys/scared.png)
And the usual load of codswallop from our resident terrosist supprter! Small wonder he is happy to have trigger happy cops all over the place. America is supposed to be civilised and highly principled - well on paper but it is still a case of warped patriotism and lack of grey cells that smiles at all the police beatings and killings. And that big city of Chicago where police torturers got away with it for two decades and the chance of compensation more or less zilch Smile you epitomise those in the ex-colonies who rabbit about terrible countries with bad human rights, police brutality and so on but you practice the same damn thing yourself at home. If you are a policeman in America the equal chance of getting away with anything is high up the scale. That the image to the world of course does not effect your mindset because principle is just a word to be used to cower people or do them in. Even when there is a mass peaceful protest the batons are out right away keen to batter people. That the police are free to do what they like and you have to have soliders on the streets shows the deep flaw and two-faced society.
Trouble is as a society you have never grown up and moved on from the wild west days. Considering you tortured people in Iraq as the norm,regularly killed wedding receptions, your marines went on shooting sprees, I suppose it is only right that you shouldensure your uniformed also do it inside your country as well. Yeah that is balanced. :down:
Good cop, bad cop.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152685830168096]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152685830168096]https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152685830168096 (https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152685830168096)
So in Smiley's mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is! As for his stance that "we respect our police" (totally seemingly) that is a case of anything in a uniform can do what he likes.
'Shooting to wound' is something you can only expect to see on your favorite 'cops & robbers' TV show, or in a movie direct from Hollywood.
Anyone actually knowledgeable on the subject, as attested to here (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=472.msg30572#msg30572), will most probably suggest that all the cheese has simply slid off yer cracker!
But hey, RJ .............. why don't you put your money where your mouth is??!!
I'm callin' you out here & now --- enough of your fantasy minded cock & bull!
Show us the training programs you know of first hand that does teach it's officers to 'shoot to wound'.
The way you're running off with the mouth, they must be a 'dime a dozen'!?
Please, direct us to the specific training policy, from anywhere in the world, that supports just that ---- Supports a 'Shoot to Wound' Training Policy.
We'd all be enjoying a good, legitimate read, rather that your usual bloviated fiction.
I'll even help you ........ Start here (http://bit.ly/15O4DV1)
RJ old man ,,,,,,, It's time ta shit, or get off the pot -- no more excuses!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrQKlrjd.gif&hash=3e5099535626e28890e1020eda415aad" rel="cached" data-hash="3e5099535626e28890e1020eda415aad" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rQKlrjd.gif)
Still avoiding the
simple question RJ, or just typically gone coward ....... again ?
Your mouth write some checks your ass can't cash??
You're so quick lie without support, well this time you're stuck with this one like stink on shit.
So, direct us to a specific policy,
from anywhere in the world, a policy that supports ----
Supports a 'Shoot to Wound' Policy.Or will you be a man & admit you were spewing out yer tail, & simply can't. That would be acceptable too.
RJ talks like a man who has never actually had to do it. ANYBODY can say "shoot to wound" from the safety of his armchair--- it's quite another thing to do this while in a fight.
Just sayin'.
Well you live in a gun violent and mad country mjsmsprt40 and just like Smiley come out with codswallop instead of facing the truth. One can therefore take it that the police corruption in your city of Chicago is okay then?
There is a university man, Professor Peter Kraska (Eastern Kentucky University estimates that the most violent cops the SWAT were sent out 3,000 times in 1980 BUT are now used 50,000 times a year. Indeed these includes events that do not need them at all. The Professor calls it militarisation. In addition the general population of America once felt the police combatted crimes. I can accept jimbro's point about "good cops" because it would be ridiculous to ignore such but in cities everywhere there is a problem In leafy suburbs things are a bit calmer but does not allow the general pitucture to be grayed. However somewhere along the road the language changed and the thinking changed with it. Now they fight wars. There are wars on drugs, wars on crime, wars against bad guys BUT somewhere the interaction with the general citizenry was left behind.
There was a time we could look in on the States and laugh at people who barricaded themselves into some country house waiting for the police or Feds to come for them and do battle but who is laughing now? Smiley has no common sense and I fail to see how his whooping and hollering gung-ho type of Americanism is intelligent, coherent or sensible. Police gunning down people at the first resort as well as unarmed people is okay in his book which is beyond intellectual reason. As he also supports terrorists he does his country no good and makes it a laughing stock. Even allowing for the reasonable and honest cops over there the country nationally is seen by the world as a policed hell-hole and dangerous and the more it gets militarised the worst it will get. That a country can allow policemen to gun down unarmed people and so keen to kill them is as stupid as it comes. That cops more or less can do what they like and never get charged shows a deep flaw and one day you will live to regret it. For the many decent people it must be a concern whilst others have not noticed the vast change that has been running for years. Gradual police state status is creeping along nicely. I fear for the future with gun dangerous cops who are immune from law. :irked:
I never thought I'd do it, but---
I join with Smiley in asking if you know of ANY course ANYWHERE where they teach "shoot to wound" to stop a miscreant from doing whatever it is you need him/her to stop doing.
Otherwise, without any evidence that such a course actually exists--- remember, we're talking here of a situation where guns have come out and are being used-- I have to suspect somebody is pulling "shoot to wound" out of a "Hopalong Cassidy" TV western.
Several years back I had the opportunity to look in on a training session, people were training to be armed security guards and of course this meant time spent on the shooting range. You know, I didn't see one human-shaped target-- not even one-- that had the bullseye anywhere other than in the upper torso. No arm shots, no leg shots, not even a lower abdomen shot would have scored. Now, I saw plenty of human-shaped targets that day-- but not one that would have qualified as "shoot to wound".
I did a Google search on "shoot to wound" and the results are somewhat less than promising for the idea. Seems that if it comes to a shooting situation, might as well go all the way. Warning shots and brandishing the weapon as a threat is frowned upon as well. Seems the best idea is not to pull the weapon out at all, but if you do you mean business.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=shoot+to+wound
Shooting to kill seems to be the norm and not just in America - see here for example - Shoot-to-wound is impossible, says Britain's top cop Sir Ian Blair (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100177/Shoot-to-wound-is-impossible-says-Britains-top-cop-Sir-Ian-Blair.html).
But there are cases when police don't do that - it depends on the individual I suppose. When Lee Rigby was assaulted an decapitated by a couple of fanatics in London, the police were charged by the perpetrators who (as the man stated afterwards) was indent on killing them if he could od dying a "Martyr's Death". He had a knife and the policeman who shot him nevertheless aimed to wound. The other person I think had a gun but he too was wounded. See here for more details --- Covered in blood and wielding a gun: Moment police shoot armed men 'after they murdered soldier Lee Rigby on streets of Woolwich (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517389/Moment-police-shoot-men-murdered-soldier-Lee-Rigby-Woolwich.html).
I can appreciate the force of argument for having a "shoot to kill" option but there is still the context. In the UK if there is a shooting incident by the police there is an automatic independent review of the circumstances to see if the shooting was justified and some responsibility lies on the policeman who did the shooting to make his justification - I would assume this is still is also the case in the US although I'm not sure about the independent aspect.(?)
Shooting to wound if the perp has a gun is foolhardy. If the perp has a knife and is 10 feet away or closer is foolhardy.
Ask yourself what you would do.
Not having a gun or knife on my person, I'd simply die. :yikes:
In the UK if there is a shooting incident by the police there is an automatic independent review of the circumstances to see if the shooting was justified and some responsibility lies on the policeman who did the shooting to make his justification - I would assume this is still is also the case in the US although I'm not sure about the independent aspect.(?)
.de is supposed to be like that. Except when the dead guy is an RAF-terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Grams), then the investigation will be quietly swept under the rug.
Police DO have tools at their disposal to wound, rather than kill. The baton and the tazer come to mind--- though there have been cases of people dying while being tazed, so this method of non-lethal subduing of a subject is not foolproof.
Sometimes it comes down to plain old judgement-call. An enraged perp is attacking you, may have already made an attempt to grab your gun--- what do you do? You have instants to make a decision.
In the UK if there is a shooting incident by the police there is an automatic independent review of the circumstances to see if the shooting was justified and some responsibility lies on the policeman who did the shooting to make his justification - I would assume this is still is also the case in the US although I'm not sure about the independent aspect.(?)
.de is supposed to be like that. Except when the victim is an RAF-terrorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Grams), then the investigation will be quietly swept under the rug.
Every major US city has an investigative division, and if an officer's gun is discharged questions will be asked and the officer will be taken off the streets at least while the investigation is carried out.
Shot to kill, shot to wound is becoming the argument. Now it's increasingly questionable if all the shooting is necessary if the suspects are that much of a threat to officers.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4#t=130) This video [/url] shows the police action that led to the man's death. An hour after that part of video was shot, a man died at the hands of the police and committed no crime, expressed his frustration at being harnessed by the police but was not a threat to them. The commentator notes that when Garner complained that he couldn't breath, more force was applied.
Something has gone terribly wrong with policing when low level crimes such as selling loose cigarettes results in death.
Shooting to kill seems to be the norm and not just in America - see here for example - Shoot-to-wound is impossible, says Britain's top cop Sir Ian Blair (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100177/Shoot-to-wound-is-impossible-says-Britains-top-cop-Sir-Ian-Blair.html).
Technically I believe it's called shoot to stop, at least around these parts, although I suppose that's a bit of a euphemism. It means police officers are trained to aim for the torso. Btw, to my knowledge shoot to stop primarily applies if the subject is actually seen carrying a firearm.
Neat of you to try and take the heat off the country with the most militant and gun mad cops. The place has a problem and dear oh dear dear Chicago man the point is what? What you are trying to do is give a balanced view which is bonkers.No-one including the high up who led it have been charged no compensation for the 200 victims Can it sink in that police always get away with it? They did in your city for 20 years! Even where they do get "looked at" it is a propaganda exercise and never get charged. Even if someone comes up here with an officer who has been charged it is so minuscule in the face of what IS going on that makes no damn difference. :faint:
So, where are the places that teach "shoot to wound"?
Tick-tock-tick-tock.
Oh dear, it seems I somehow cut out the video of Eric Garner being choked to death by police. Here's him being choked (http://ti.me/1o6StfN) by officers. Even has he complained of breathing problems, the officers increased their use of force. Shot to kill, shot to wound? What able not applying deadly force in situations when it isn't required.
…didn't Garner die about an hour later, at a hospital?
…didn't Garner die about an hour later, at a hospital?
Yes, he did.
.....Pantaleo's lawyer and police union officials argued that the grand jury got it right, saying that the officer used an authorized takedown move - not a banned chokehold - against a man who was resisting arrest. And they said Garner's poor health was the main cause of his death. The medical examiner ruled that the chokehold contributed to the death.......
I have seen many exhibitions on various procedures used in taking down a suspect resisting arrest, & I have also watched the various videos related to the take-down in this case.
I can agree that these, what some may report as violent, activities could have contributed to the death of a man resisting arrest, especially if he had numerous health issues. The same would have also been said if the officer copped a coronary, & if he died performing his duty, due to the stress of the struggle.
That said, I find -- IMHO -- it a far reach trying to label the actions taken in this attempted arrest as intentional use of a
"deadly force". Contributing to his death most probably, considering the resister's health issues, but any use of deadly force is only in the minds of the MSM who would love that they might exacerbate the issue into an all out hellish
'racial incident', if not redrum.
Oh, btw, RJ .......... as I earlier, & MJM has recently demanded ....."So, where are the places that teach "shoot to wound"?
Tick-tock-tick-tock."
Or are you, RJ, willing to continue to be known as a lying coward, one who has no regard whatsoever for honesty or the truth?!?
Be a man, step up & simply admit you made an error -- that there are no such training programs anywhere in the World that promote a policy of "Shoot to Wound".
RJ, come clean ........., this isn't going away.
Tick-tock-tick-tock.
1. You've never had a humble opinion.
2. The cop didn't die.
3. The man did die. Unnecessarily.
4. What are the strangle to wound procedures?
activities could have contributed to the death of a man resisting arrest,
No, because he wasn't resisting arrest. He did complain about his treatment by police but made no move to fight them. When Garner complained of his breathing difficulties, Pantaleo pressed down on him harder. I'm sure Pantaleo didn't mean to kill him, in the same way that if I party too hard on the Strip and runover a pedestrian I didn't exactly mean to end somebody's life either. Unlike Pantaleo, my poor judgement and its results would land me in jail. However, like me, Pantaleo broke the law. The moves the officer used against Garner were illegal by police regulations. It isn't simply a matter "due to the stress of the struggle." No, it was because the cop used a method known to be dangerous to the suspects and was banned accordingly and Garner's death was ruled a homicide.
As former President GW Bush said (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/george-w-bush-eric-garner-reaction-113349.html) "The verdict was hard to understand."
Pantaleo broke the law. The moves the officer used against Garner were illegal by police regulations..........it was because the cop used a method known to be dangerous to the suspects and was banned accordingly
Ok, I've searched for these so called regulations, & specifically relating to the ban on this particular procedure, or any similar, procedure, to no avail??
Outside of just repeating what's already being said, over, & over, where did you find these regulations that include this banned procedure?
Further, does
"known to be dangerous to the suspects" mean the same thing as
"deadly force"? The way it's been loosely thrown around, it seems to imply that it does.
You didn't find that regulation from 1993 yet? Keep looking :)
Garner's death was ruled a homicide.
Homicide: The killing of one human being by another human being.
Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.
English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non-felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was not considered a crime.........continued
So, in the broadest of terms, the medical examiner is simply saying that this human beings death was, in his opinion, caused by another human being.
As far as I know, he failed to define, or include, any mitigating circumstances that were related to this finding.
The reason all this is important is because the Grand Jury didn't find reasons enough to require charges to be laid -- the finding of
"probable cause" .
Their reasoning may/might be contained somewhere in the above, no?
You didn't find that regulation from 1993 yet? Keep looking
Found a lot of reporting ..... hearsay .....I'm still looking for the actual definitive directive, or regulation.
I'm not saying that there isn't one pertaining to
a specific maneuver, but I would like to see the regulation that must define the banned maneuver, the one taught in basic training that is now banned, in some detail.
From my findings so far, there seems that there is a ban
'of sorts' in effect since 1993 as you alluded to, but it's terms as reported seem to be/are
vague.
The NYC Police Department & The Civilian Complaint Review Board are jointly looking for ways to rewrite the
vague regulation (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-banning-chokeholds-article-1.1969389)so that it is completely defined, & can be clearly understood & followed.
I'll let you know when I do find the existing
'actual' regulation, as opposed to all the
'hearsay' reports of one.
Lest I forget......
RJ .......... as I earlier, & MJM has recently demanded ....."So, where are the places that teach "shoot to wound"?
Tick-tock-tick-tock."
Step up, & be a man about it, you either know, or they don't exist, except in yer ole man's imagination.
What is it with you two? I never said that what I said was that there should where shooting is required it should be to wound. Not surprised your government has a concern about education standards dear terrorist supporter of the police state. You are no better in policing than many of the genuine dictators should moan about ot invade.
What is it with you two? I never said that what I said was that there should where shooting is required it should be to wound. Not surprised your government has a concern about education standards dear terrorist supporter of the police state. You are no better in policing than many of the genuine dictators should moan about ot invade.
OK, noted. You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere. Got it. You hate the United States--- actually, have no use for anybody outside of Glasgow except for your friend Putin. Noted. Ho hum.
What is it with you two? I never said that what I said was that there should where shooting is required it should be to wound. Not surprised your government has a concern about education standards dear terrorist supporter of the police state. You are no better in policing than many of the genuine dictators should moan about ot invade.
OK, noted. You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere. Got it. You hate the United States--- actually, have no use for anybody outside of Glasgow except for your friend Putin. Noted. Ho hum.
Cut the man some slack. Knowing everything, putting everybody right, hating an entire country, rising reliably to the bait from other posters: it all takes time and energy.
Little wonder he has no interest in putting together a simple declarative sentence. Some people can handle English as a second language and some cannot.
Cut the man some slack. Knowing everything, putting everybody right, hating an entire country, rising reliably to the bait from other posters: it all takes time and energy.
Little wonder he has no interest in putting together a simple declarative sentence. Some people can handle English as a second language and some cannot.
Be nice, sir, be nice.
Found a lot of reporting ..... hearsay .....I'm still looking for the actual definitive directive, or regulation.
Yup, that's a Right problem. Everybody's lying, everybody's wrong except you. Even that half-assed
NY Post article indicates that move was banned, despite the fact the the publications is New York's equivalent to the
Daily Mail .
The New York Law Journal get's into more detail [/i].
(http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202664405714/Clamping-Down-on-Chokeholds?slreturn=20141108001454)
Chokeholds have been limited by the NYPD in some form since at least 1985, when commissioner Benjamin Ward issued the following order:
1. Effective immediately, choke holds, which are potentially lethal and unnecessary, WILL NOT be routinely used by members of the New York City Police Department.
2. Choke holds will ONLY be used if the officer's life is in danger or some other person's life is in danger and the choke hold is the least dangerous alternative method of restraint available to the police officer.1
Before we move onto the 1993 regulation, remember what I said about Patrick J. Lynch of the Police Union claiming Pantaleo was trained to use chokeholds? That turns out to a flat out lie.
Perhaps ironically, New York City police are not trained to use chokeholds because they are prohibited, which creates a greater potential for their tragic misuse.
The article goes on to explain why, which includes variables such as the suspect's physical and mental health. This would seem to include Garner's poor physical condition.
Now onto the regulation itself:
Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.5
The regulation doesn't seem vague at all.
Chokeholds would seem to be illegal in general, and not just the men in blue.
Changes in Law
In 2010, the state Legislature created a potentially powerful new tool to prevent unlawful chokeholds: the misdemeanor offense of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation.19 The crime, requiring proof of intent to obstruct breathing or blood circulation but without inflicting serious injury, is punishable by up to one year in prison. With the same proof of intent, a defendant can be charged with felony strangulation in the first or second degree if the victim dies or suffers serious injury.20 These offenses were created to address domestic violence situations in which it can be difficult for prosecutors to prove assault for lack of a visible physical injury.
I'm not seeing how Pantaleo was in the right. Garner's eyes were rolling to the back of his head, he complained that he couldn't breathe. Incredibly, I've read commentary that says the fact that he said couldn't breathe was proof that he could. Technically, there does have to be
some air flowing in order to speak; but from how he said it one can tell that he was indeed having breathing difficulty. At that point Pantaleo needed to do a quick assessment if was hurting Garner, instead of actually applying more pressure.
You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere.
It was pretty much made up that Howie said any such thing. It was more like he offered it as a suggestion.
up, that's a Right problem. Everybody's lying, everybody's wrong except you. Even that half-assed NY Post article indicates that move was banned, despite the fact the the publications is New York's equivalent to the Daily Mail .
The New York Law Journal get's into more detail [/i].
(http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202664405714/Clamping-Down-on-Chokeholds?slreturn=20141108001454)
Thank you for your clarifications, & referrals. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/Read%20the%20paper_smile28.gif) They were very interesting reading, to say the least. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/reading.gif)
As you can see from my posts, all I was looking for was something I wasn't able to put my finger on.....
the actual regulation itself (see below), but your numerous corroborating accounts, & quoted statements, leave little doubt.
If what this officer did is considered a choke-hold, then it seems that he's got a bit of explaining to do when the Feds crack down on his ass for sure!
I wonder if they'll drop the ball too?
I'm not saying that there isn't one pertaining to a specific maneuver, but I would like to see the regulation that must define the banned maneuver, the one taught in basic training that is now banned, in some detail.
From my findings so far, there seems that there is a ban 'of sorts' in effect since 1993 1985 as you alluded to, but it's terms as reported seem to be/are vague.
The NYC Police Department & The Civilian Complaint Review Board are jointly looking for ways to rewrite the vague regulation (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/editorial-banning-chokeholds-article-1.1969389)so that it is completely defined, & can be clearly understood & followed.
......Chief John Timoney elaborated that cops should “basically, stay the hell away from the neck,” except in life-threatening circumstances.
But, as cops were brought up on charges of using illegal chokeholds, both the NYPD and CCRB watered down the standard to give officers a break if complainants suffered no lasting injuries even though their breathing had been restricted.
One result was that cops might well have concluded that chokeholds were generally okay. It would not be surprising if that message plays a role in the Staten Island district attorney’s investigation of Garner’s death, as well as in Pantaleo’s defense, should he be indicted.
Now, Commissioner Bill Bratton and Emery are moving to rewrite the regulations so as to restore the chokehold prohibition while creating necessary exceptions. Banning cops from all contact with the neck is unrealistic.
An officer must be able to apply a chokehold if his or her life is in immediate danger. At the same time, cops should not fear discipline if, say, they grab someone by the back of a jacket or shirt collar to break up a fight or arrest a fleeing felon. Then, too, a cop should be free from penalty if a resistant suspect assaults the officer and, in the tussle, the cop’s arm winds up around the suspect’s neck.
Bratton and Emery must meet the tough challenge of clearly defining for the city’s 35,000 cops those physical restraints that are out of bounds without tangling them in minutiae that will lead to endless second-guessing..........
BTW...this is the same link I originally posted in my prior quoted post.
Thanks again for your post.
The information was surely appreciated. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
You made noises about "shoot to wound" but can't back it up with evidence that this is actually taught anywhere.
It was pretty much made up that Howie said any such thing. It was more like he offered it as a suggestion.
His posts regarding wounding speaks volumes ...... His suggestion(s) is(are) crystal clear ....
Suggests the wounding alternative, which needs to be trained:......Shoot to <k>iill seems to be the training not wounding in the leg or something but just bullet them......
.........
Again, suggests the wounding alternative, which needs to be trained:.....Obviously there will be times when the police have to shoot (although wounding would be better).......
..........
Suggests the wounding alternative as a first intention, which needs to be trained:.......Protecting the people is just a saying and in practice they have almost special unofficial rights in a sense. Too often killing is the first intention not wounding or anything else........
.................
And if you weren't sure before, this is proof positive that he was suggesting a wounding alternative:
........So in Smilet<y>'s mindset shooting to wound isn't on and what a diabolical argument corner that one is!..........
He does suggest, but similarly his suggestion has the implication that it is the rule most everywhere else, & in the USA it isn't even considered as an alternative, when in reality nobody anywhere officially suggests what he suggests as a valid training alternative...........period!!
Now, the only way an officer would utilize RJ's suggested methodology, is if the officers were trained to do so. Otherwise you would have to believe that they simply show up, get a badge & a gun, & are immediately sent off to the streets to make split-second life-death decisions. (Well, maybe in Glassgow, & if they are I will retract all my statements. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif))
I wonder if they'll drop the ball too?
If the Feds were an NFL team, they would surely make the record books for fumbles. It doesn't matter what the issue is. All too often the police have reputation for being thugs, almost just another gang. With the Micheal Brown case, a common response was to show that Brown was a threat to the officer, and therefore Wilson was justified in shooting him. That's all well and good, and it is important for Brown's family and for Wilson that the truth of the matter be discerned. The other question, the one that I consider equally important, is why the community was so ready to believe Wilson gunned him down in cold blood? I'll leave that open for you to ponder. In the interest of fairness, the evidence isn't conclusive that police do shoot black people more readily than whites. I've seen articles about the same study with different writers walking away with different conclusions, with people paying more attention to the data they want to see. I read the original study myself and found it inconclusive. Civilians and police were asked to push "shoot" or a button not shot based on scenarios in which suspects had a gun or didn't. The civilians shot more readily than the police, regardless of the suspect's race.
His posts regarding wounding speaks volumes ...... His suggestion(s) is(are) crystal clear ....
Well sure. Let's not argue about Howie's words, though. That was just my own quick observation. Of course, if the suspect pulls a weapon on an officer, it would be nonsense to try to shot the weapon out of his hand like in a spaghetti western.
I would point out that in "spaghetti westerns" they aren't actually shooting the gun out of the hand. It's all timing and trick photography, shooting blanks that make noise, strings that jerk the gun out of the bad guy's hand and lots of off-stage doctoring of the scenes to get the final result that you see while eating the popcorn and drinking the way-too-expensive soft-drink. Given the way they shoot movies, in real time it could be a WEEK between the good guy firing the shot and the gun leaping out of the bad guy's hand--- there's other scenes they shoot in the meantime, lots of work to be done to pull this all together.
The bottom line is simple.
Want a good chance of getting shot, & probably killed?
Step #1 - Break the law.
Step #2 - Resist arrest.
Step #3 - Have a punch out with an officer.
Step #4 - Try to access, & struggle for the officers weapon.
Step #5 - Charge an armed officer --- ignoring any & all warnings, putting that officer in fear for his life &/or personal wellbeing.
Now................
Want to have the best chance of a longer life?
Don't follow Steps #1 thru #5, & eat bran muffins.
BTW RJ, it is a 100% sure thing that at no point, if following Steps #1 thru #5, will you be "shot to wound".
You won't be 'shot to kill' either, but chances are extremely high that you will expire prior to your 'use by date'.(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
76BB
Step #7 - Say nothing when police cross the line.
Step #8 - Make excuses for the police. Blame the dead, even if video evidence shows him doing nothing wrong.
Step #9 - Live in tyranny.
Oh for goodness sake! No wonder the place is so damn dangerous with daft comments like that. When a police force is allowed to shoot people when the person concerned is unarmed and often not once but more bullets than that there is something wrong. Are you telling me that somehow those idiotsd in uniform are somehow naturally brilliant and can get away with anything. Oops they do get away with anything. You and Smiley in particular cannot get beyond the blinkered vision that they are special. No they are not and they should be treated under the same law as as everyone else. Others don't get away with it so why should they. As for the infantile comment that you could live in tyranny. You are and your police State is getting nearer all the time.
It is this mindset that anyone in a military or police uniform is special and above reproach no matter the situation and this attitude is based on an over produced nationalism disguised as patriotic. Even allowing for the many decent police in general your country does have a police problem but the duh mentality as being shown by you two makes the country not only a laughing stock but makes people shake their heads. When you are not shooting yourselves in thousands annually the police are in on the game too. And there is something deeply flawed in people who get a uniform, badge and "training" who think it is okay to shoot unarmed and often innocents and get away with it. May I say again that what passes for a legal system in America is a joke and just a theatre for lawyers. Fiddly about with the most minuscule things while at the same time making it plain to the cops they can do anything in the name of law.
You still haven't grown up in policing or law and small wonder the place is crime ridden, jails full, queues for the death row (for years and a form of torture which proves my legal status point). Outside of the lush suburbia you are fraught with danger. The other day I laughed at a man from over there who was angry that when passing a policeman in the street with his hands in both pockets he was ordered by the cop to withdraw them. It is the kind of passing incident that emphasises the dictatorial aspect of US policing so if you want to ill someone with impunity join the police.
The clock is ticking to a police state and dictatorship.
As for the infantile comment that you could live in tyranny. You are and your police State is getting nearer all the time.
Who's being daft? My additional steps were a criticism of Smiley's steps, a sarcastic way of showing that you don't have to follow his steps to wind up in trouble. The closest I ever got to being arrested was, in fact, trying to report a crime committed against me.
It is this mindset that anyone in a military or police uniform is special and above reproach no matter the situation and this attitude is based on an over produced nationalism disguised as patriotic.
That's close to being the opposite of what I actually said, Howie. The growing feeling, especially in urban areas like this, is the police do indeed stop and harass citizens that didn't commit a crime. Or if you did commit a petty crime, their reaction is out of proportion to what you did or your threat to the police. Take Garner's case: he didn't pull a weapon, "charge" the police, or do anything else violent. Even if he hadn't died, the police actions would still be questionable at best - especially since chokeholds are banned for NYPD.
Oh for goodness sake! No wonder the place is so damn dangerous with daft comments like that. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) I hate everything about the America -- you included!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/crappered6.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif) I hate you!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif) I hate the USA!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif) I hate Americans, unless they are just like me!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) And that's why the USA Sux!!!
I hate everything about the ex-colonies!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/crappered6.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) Anybody not living here is stupid!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif) I hate you!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif) I hate, I hate, I hate, & I hate hate hate!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif) I hate you, & your stupid country too!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) The clock is ticking to a police state and dictatorship. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif) And that's just a start on why the America Sux!!!
Now it's your turn 'Coony .......... Notice a pattern in his rants?
76BB
Oh a not very subtle attempt to avoid the deep issue of the police over there by using that handy wrod 'hate.' For the more sensible and rational minds outside of say, hhm, Sanguinemoon drinking in propaganda and Smiley the resident terrorist supporter who follows a long tradition of actual hate via killing people it is kind of laughable. At least San made a kinf of attempt even though it is a repeat of what DC and the media waffles on. Smiley on the other hand cannot be taken with any degree of morality being the US rightist gung ho mentality. Someone who supports killers as his logo indicates is beyond the pale.
It all skips the point that there are regular killings of the unarmed week after week somewhere in the ex-colonies, beatings, torture and no accountability. It all does emphasise my attitude of the pathetic wimpering about men in uniform whether soldierr or policeman. Your jails are bursting at the seams thus showing a deep flaw and that police never end up there because they are uniformed shows a mentality of the child mind and a dangerous country. Between the jails, police allowance and what passes for a legal system thank heavens in long retrospect that you broke away. The flagrant contradiction of freedoms, rights and such is obvious to the world and no small reason it is so unpopular in so many places. It is no small wonder the head shrinker industry is so widespread with terrorists like Smiley trying to show he is normal. Never once in the Opera nor this forum have I said I hate Americans. I have no time at all for your syste and so-called legal practices or wanting to dominate the world. That you cannot see that smiley only makes your stuff here look more pathetic.
For the more adapt mind it is known that there aare those over there who are concerned about the police situation but the Smiley attitude would sneer at them being almost un-American. He would just love that 1950's Committee back with a vengeance. The man who ran it would have been a hero to him!
Oh a not very subtle attempt to avoid the deep issue of how, how much I really, really, do dislike anything American!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif) I dislike you!! I dislike everything about the USA!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/crappered6.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif) I dislike you!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif) I despise the USA!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/1eyealien001.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/gaah.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hitqt9.gif) I despise you!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/JumpinMad01.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/twister.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) Between the jails, police allowance and what passes for a legal system thank heavens in long retrospect that you broke away. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/smileyvaultbadday.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/angryhatchling.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) And that's why I despise you, & everyone else but myself!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/beammeupscotty.gif)
Ooooooppps, my turn again!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif)
76BB
One can make allowances for you as I didn't know you were stll at school. Oops, sorry.
There are interesting developments. Two white men took BB-guns off the shelf and proceed to shot up the store with it (http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/09/911-caller-admits-he-lied-about-african-american-shot-by-police-in-walmart/) are arrested by officers. African American John Crawford commits no crime when he was looking a BB-guns and gets gunned down. More on this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2014/12/16/john-crawfords-family-sues-wal-mart-ohio-town-police-for-wrongful-death/) the Crawford's family's wrongful death suit. Crawford didn't point the the toy gun at anyone, including the police.
More (http://www.ibtimes.com/john-crawford-shooting-ohio-man-shot-dead-police-while-holding-toy-rifle-walmart-1655416) on Crawford:
Speaking to the Daily News, LeeCee Johnson, 22, who identified herself as the mother of Crawford’s children, said she was talking to Crawford on her cell phone at the time of the shooting.
“We was just talking. He said he was at the video games playing videos and he went over there by the toy section where the toy guns were. And the next thing I know, he said ‘It’s not real,’ and the police start shooting and they said ‘Get on the ground,’ but he was already on the ground because they had shot him,” she said. She added she “could hear him just crying and screaming” and said officers “shot him down like he was not even human.”
The police claim Crawford wasn't obeying their orders. You can't obey if you're already dead, can you?
Would love to see the store's videotapes of the incident, which hopefully will have both audio & video recorded.
Without audio it becomes he said, he said.
From what I saw it looks damning, but without a record of whatever was said leaves only unfounded speculations at best.
That's an understandable request. However, apparently neither Walmart nor the police will release them to the media, which is suspicious in and of itself. However, Ronald Ritchie, who called 911, admitted to lying. The white guys, on the other hand, were a clear threat. It is possible to be killed by a pellet rifle (http://www.wjtv.com/story/24342940/child-killed-by-pellet-rifle).
If you threaten others with a weapon, you run a fair risk of getting shot or killed yourself, I don't think anyone has a problem with that, this is self-defence. That doesn't mean police have to kill people endangering others, it is far preferable not to if they can do so if they can capture the culprits safely.
Killing people stealing, vandalising, or running away is not self-defence. There is thus nothing wrong with (assumed) hoodlums staying alive, no matter their skin colour. The John Crawford case on the other hands shows fatal flaws in the system.
The main point is this matter of the level of the right to shoot by police officers in America. As is known our police don't carry guns and only have groups of special officers in some event which is not common here either. What gets me is this thing where a policeman is involved in a confronatation like one recently where an offender tried to hit the cop with his own truncheon so got shot at 11 times?? The same has applied in regular other events. In Ferguson it is an inbuilt right to shoot a man (in that case unarmed) 6 times including in the back?). In the odd incident here an officer does not tend to pump a number of bullets into someone and there is always an immediate investigation into the matter.
The trouble in American big cities is this love affair with the gun and the fact that police can more or less do what they damn well like because they are in a uniform. Why is it the system is so out of kilter that police do not get arrested for going over the top and challenged. The country needs to review the city police system and the uniformed gunmen need greater discipline and be properly looked into with shootings. The image that is given to the world is not a good one and only goes to help the view that the places is overly dangerous and the police becoming dictators and not held to account.
The trouble in American big cities is this love affair with the gun and the fact that police can more or less do what they damn well like because they are in a uniform.
That wasn't even a big city. It was Beavercreek, Ohio. Some time ago, Smiley complained of a man getting arrested and released the next day for having a gun in his when he was pulled over. As I said at that time, he was lucky to get out the incident alive. Of course, that man was White. Around here, he'd be on the way to coroner with his body resembling a macabre parody of Swiss cheese regardless of skin color or the weapons permit.
6 times including in the back
The in the back is the bit the police defenders forget about this case. Yes, he did rob the store. No, he was the angel some liberal media him out to be. But, yes Wilson continued firing after any threat had passed. How much of a threat Brown was is debatable. It came out that Wilson's injuries were greatly exaggerated.
People are starting to fear the police more than the criminals and that's called tyranny.
I don't know whether the officer who did the shooting in Ferguson actually knew the man had robbed a store when the confrontation started but the 6 shots are something else of course. There was another incident in another State where a cop shot at a man 11 times? In that case the FBI and some other lot are investigating itThis is crazy stuff and happens every week somewhere and is ludicrous. In the odd shooting here a policeman will not go daft and empty a gun at someone and as I pointed out there is a very thorough investigation when such happens. There is a fundamental problem where the police in too many places think they are the law like the old West and they do the opposite from protecting people.Whether an assailant or suspect is armed or not armed the routine is to fire several shots - no attempt to wound but kill.
That time after time the police get automatically away with multiple shooting especially on the unarmed and is a disgrace and they know they will get away with it so why is that allowed? Guns are too deeply embedded in the psyche and it is time there was an overhaul of procedures on multi-firing cops. Just because someone is in a uniform is not an answer at all.
This is crazy stuff and happens every week somewhere and is ludicrous. In the odd shooting here a policeman will not go daft and empty a gun at someone and as I pointed out there is a very thorough investigation when such happens. There is a fundamental problem where the police in too many places think they are the law like the old West and they do the opposite from protecting people.
It's a very large country.
This is crazy stuff and happens every week somewhere and is ludicrous. In the odd shooting here a policeman will not go daft and empty a gun at someone and as I pointed out there is a very thorough investigation when such happens. There is a fundamental problem where the police in too many places think they are the law like the old West and they do the opposite from protecting people.
It's a very large country.
And multifaceted.
Unlike Scotland. I have been there and it is homogeneous. A bit like porridge, one Scot is pretty much like another Scot.
I will grant that some of the women are distinguishable from some of the men.
Oh what an excuse jimro! When one considers the chest thumping about being the greatest in the world while the actuality shows something else the size does not come into the rquasion. That so many policemen shoot to kill and one bullet or two insufficient this tels you something flawed and terrible. Why does it take 6 or 11 bullets to get someone especially the people unarmed. The gun rules the place and with the number owned and the way too many policemen go gung-ho is more telling than the propaganda. Armoured military vehivles regular helmets and other army gear and even using the army on streets tells the world something more real than the "we are the greatest" syndrome!
Interesting comments from down under where it is equally difficult to tell some women from kangaroos so hey we have something in common after all tt92. How brilliant for the festive time and New year. Well done to you. :up:
.........even using the army on streets tells the world something more real........
The National Guard (an entity beholden only to the State, & not under Presidential or Federal Control) maybe in rare instances, but the U.S. Army ......, not!
That's forbidden in law & the Constitution except in
extreme circumstances (ex: an organized insurrection, natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident).
RJ, get yer facts straight before you decide to verbally flush yer bowels!
Aneat play on words dear marxist terrorist supporter. The National guard are still essentially solders (although your police are getting more and more like soldiers). Apart from doing a danc on the police issue you should face up to the fact that there is a problem.
Aneat play on words dear marxist terrorist supporter. The National guard are still essentially solders (although your police are getting more and more like soldiers). Apart from doing a danc on the police issue you should face up to the fact that there is a problem.
Close, but no cigar......they are not
'U.S. Soldiers'. I was a U.S. Soldier, & I (along with 95%+ of American Citizens) know the difference.
Most foreigners shouldn't & can't be expected to know, so you're forgiven. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/pope.gif)
Problem? ......... I think it's already been resolved ..........
The People of St. Louis County have spoken.
The Grand Jury was composed of 12 people "selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens," according to Missouri law.
The jurors, whose identities were kept secret, were 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man.
St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white.
The Grand Jury found that there was no
'probable cause' to indict.
It was not necessary to be unanimous to find
'probable cause' to indict. The Grand Jury heard 70 hours of testimony from 60 witnesses (which included Officer Wilson & 59 other citizens).
Case closed (for now) ...... It's been done & dusted.......next.
The National Guard can be thought of as today's version of the "Minute Men". Citizen-soldiers, working regular jobs to pay the bills, but on call in case of emergency by either state or federal officials. That "emergency" may involve guns--- or it may involve filling sandbags to hold back flood waters. They are NOT part of the regular army, but may be called on to fight alongside the regulars if needed. Because they're really state militias, they answer to the governors of the various states as needed-- a thing the regular army can't, by constitutional law, do. Not that this would necessarily stop regular soldiers from helping fill sandbags if the nearby town is threatened-- but the regular army can't provide police service-- the National Guard, being a state militia, can provide police service if authorized by the governor.
There-- does that confuse you enough, or should I provide a link?
The National Guard can be thought of as today's version of the "Minute Men". Citizen-soldiers, working regular jobs to pay the bills, but on call in case of emergency by either state or federal officials. That "emergency" may involve guns--- or it may involve filling sandbags to hold back flood waters. They are NOT part of the regular army, but may be called on to fight alongside the regulars if needed. Because they're really state militias, they answer to the governors of the various states as needed-- a thing the regular army can't, by constitutional law, do. Not that this would necessarily stop regular soldiers from helping fill sandbags if the nearby town is threatened-- but the regular army can't provide police service-- the National Guard, being a state militia, can provide police service if authorized by the governor.
There-- does that confuse you enough, or should I provide a link?
Very good........maybe I should clarify my points a little....
Only members of the United States Army are called
'Soldiers'.The U.S. Marines aren't, they are the
Marines, & rarely, but sometimes affectionately called
'Leather Necks' or with great reverence
'Gyrines' (I'm one Soldier that learned the hard way about that - I got scars ta prove it too)
The U.S. Coast Guard isn't, they are called the
Coast Guard or sometimes informally
'Coasties'.The U.S. Navy isn't, the are called
Navy, or sometimes
'Sailors'.
The U.S. Air Force isn't, they are called the
Air Force, or sometimes informally
'Fly Boys'The National Guard isn't (notice the absence of U.S. -- because they aren't a United States fighting force, they are as Mike said, of the States), they are called
'Guardsmen', or the
'Guard'.
Nope, none of 'em are called
'Soldiers', because that's reserved for only one elite fighting force, the one & only
United States Army!Got it?
Elite fighting force the US Army (groan). Typical US bumming about everything. There are capable units of course but elite as an overall label? Big head stuff yet again and laughed at over the world for it. Even on a parade they look like civilians trying to be soldiers and they don't really march like most global armies but simply walk in step. Even we countries could give you a showing up. Let me remind you that the national Guard has been on overseas service - so do you get it? You can play silly games as you like over the name but it is still "National" and are soldiers or did they go overseas to play games??
On the rare occasions armed police have to be called out here officers don't go off their heads and fir 6 or 11 shots at a person especially when unarmed. Unfortunately people in your corner give the country a bad name and of course the usual trait is to say you don't care which flies in the face of the propaganda stuff. With a country awash with guns on childish reasons and too many police forces who think they can do what they damn like the places is dangerous by this showing. Even in places like N. Ireland where the police do carry a gun due to your terror pals they don't act like the polce in the ex-colonies. So if you want the freedom to have an excuse to gun someone down and in addition pump a series of bullets and not get arrested wear a police uniform. :(
Is there a policy competency problem?
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/news/2014/dec/24/bitcoin-sex-cliven-bundy-app-stories-you-might-hav/
January 6: Zappos employee Rob Ponte arrives home Monday evening to find his Downtown apartment covered in coroner’s tape—and that he’s been assumed dead most of the day. Police thought Ponte was the dead body they’d found near Towne Terrace apartments that morning. According to Clark County Coroner Mike Murphy, the mix-up came after the apartment manager thought the dead body looked like Ponte, even showing officers a copy of his driver’s license. It could have been cleared up quickly, but no one could reach anyone: Officers tried to call Ponte’s cell phone, but he was in a meeting and missed the call (and his voicemail wasn’t working anyway); and Ponte got a Zappos email asking him to contact detectives, but the call he made went straight to voicemail. Can we suggest something to both the public and the police if this ever happens again? Text! (“Rob. This is Metro. You alive?”)
:D
One tune Rj.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qle5J85-RI[/video]
There are about 780,000 police officers in the U.S. The two I know never shot anybody, as is true for most of the rest.
There is far too much gun violence in the country, though.
Is there a policy competency problem?
Officers tried to call Ponte’s cell phone, but he was in a meeting and missed the call (and his voicemail wasn’t working anyway); and Ponte got a Zappos email asking him to contact detectives, but the call he made went straight to voicemail. Can we suggest something to both the public and the police if this ever happens again? Text! (“Rob. This is Metro. You alive?”)
I believe they generally don't do that, as they wouldn't know who's on the other end. A more generic message, "please contact us", shouldn't be a problem though, no more than voicemail.
Everybody has a bad idea now and then, an idea that won't work.... and in the case of this example from 1924, perhaps it's as well that it didn't get off the drawing board. Yes, somebody actually dreamed up radio-controlled robot cops. Back in the days of reed-radios that had all-or-nothing servo movements. Today's digital-proportional systems might actually make something like this work-- but we can hope not.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F38RkQke.jpg&hash=031f89e5af23be6d76a5bf0b6df78732" rel="cached" data-hash="031f89e5af23be6d76a5bf0b6df78732" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/38RkQke.jpg)
They would have been better than what is available now! :lol:
Everybody has a bad idea now and then, an idea that won't work.... and in the case of this example from 1924, perhaps it's as well that it didn't get off the drawing board.
It sure is interesting how they're showing the robots oppressing the population rather than doing something useful.
"By H[ugo] Gernsback", one of the pioneers of science fiction, and the one who coined the term. Not really surprised.
The robots in Karel Čapek's 1920 story Rossum’s Universal Robots, where the word 'robot' was coined, they were revolutionary factory workers. Different writers, different approaches.
Those things would have been terribly "glitchy" too. Reed radios, a gasoline engine with -- most likely-- abominable radio suppression if any at all in its ignition, a "noisy" generator to charge the massive (by today's standards) battery pack-- I wonder that those robots could work at all more than a car's length from the transmitters. It wouldn't have taken much for the rabble to come up with something to jam those radios and turn the "police" into scrap.
Yeah, you're right-- it doesn't take much observation to see who's side the "police robots" are on, and that this was an oppressive thing-- rather like the Roman legions placing their shields together and marching forward against unarmed civilians in one of the territories.
"By H[ugo] Gernsback", one of the pioneers of science fiction, and the one who coined the term. Not really surprised.
Heh, I didn't look that closely.
Radio Police Automaton...
Simple television sets are much worst.
And at the two separate police funerals in New York officers turned their backs. No wonder there is police problem in the ex-colonies cities. You would think the police should run the country they get away with everything else.
Those things would have been terribly "glitchy" too. Reed radios, a gasoline engine with -- most likely-- abominable radio suppression if any at all in its ignition, a "noisy" generator to charge the massive (by today's standards) battery pack-- I wonder that those robots could work at all more than a car's length from the transmitters. It wouldn't have taken much for the rabble to come up with something to jam those radios and turn the "police" into scrap.
Yeah, you're right-- it doesn't take much observation to see who's side the "police robots" are on, and that this was an oppressive thing-- rather like the Roman legions placing their shields together and marching forward against unarmed civilians in one of the territories.
Yes, but I think those things could be easily defeated. On caterpillar tracks instead of wheels, they couldn't have been very agile. It seems possible to send a team around to topple the control car. On legs, huh? Remember that scene
The Empire Strikes Back in which the rebels tied the Imperial Walker's legs together? In the game Mech Wars, you pilot a combat mech to shot down the enemies ones. I would always aim for the legs. In short, while legs provide height, they're a tremendous weakness. In the picture's scenario, I imagine the mob can throw Molotov Cocktails at the legs . Another problem is the machines are radio controlled. Even back then, you could probably jam the signal. So the people win against those instruments of oppression :yes:
Telling policeman design, with a shaft that ejaculates tear gas, and gaseous excretions at the reverse, and what appears to be a roto-baton.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxD-5z_xHBU[/video]
While we're at it, check out that antennae on the back of the machine. AM radio, you might have gotten by with that in 1925 but I doubt it. Anybody who could find out the police frequency could jam the thing, then where are you at?
Note that today, we still don't use automatons for crowd control. There's a reason for that. Today we have far more dependable radios, digital, proportional servos, better stuff in every measurable way--- and the only robots are either in manufacturing lines or in hobby applications. Even the robots in manufacturing are coming under scrutiny, seems I've read recently that some outfits are hiring humans again because humans do a better job.
What the cities need are humans as policemen or have the aliens already infiltrated? ???
What the cities need are humans as policemen or have the aliens already infiltrated?
They have, they are called Muslims, & white left-wing social agitators & apologists.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fjwyq6a1.jpg&hash=936b32886dc26ab940c67d00052b4d5b" rel="cached" data-hash="936b32886dc26ab940c67d00052b4d5b" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/jwyq6a1.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FJYmnqXb.jpg&hash=f5dee78e0fa47214e9b0b99fb90d14c7" rel="cached" data-hash="f5dee78e0fa47214e9b0b99fb90d14c7" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/JYmnqXb.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FIdfktwK.jpg&hash=2a309858cbea7d776f3b792bbb93a839" rel="cached" data-hash="2a309858cbea7d776f3b792bbb93a839" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/IdfktwK.jpg)
Britain has an idiosyncratic in fact unique policing system that is a triumph of western civilisation and the envy of the world. The light touch is its trademark, the unarmed bobby its symbol. Britains streets have for decades been orderly by western standards. It was the kind of order that ruled in the household paternal and protective, not sadistic and authoritarian. The past few days of urban riots have revealed the British policing system as untenable. It is too weak to confront the society that has grown up around it. Britons of all persuasions were disappointed in the police this week. Home secretary Theresa May told parliament the police response was not sufficiently robust. Tariq Jahan father of one of the men murdered by marauders in Birmingham while protecting his street said: If the police had handled the matter, if they could have stopped the escalation and the violence across Birmingham and other areas, this would not have happened. Light-touch policing was never as light as it looked. The bobby always had behind him as firepower the authority of societys prejudices. A consensus across classes that certain behaviours will not be tolerated is a powerful deterrent. But Britains police have had no such authority at their disposal for a long time now. British culture at least its urban culture has grown too diverse for common agreement on what is unacceptable public behaviour, short of violence. Even where such agreement exists, the authorities have been reluctant to enforce it. British culture has always been individualist, but in the last 50 years it has become radically anti-authoritarian. This disposition has to do with the project of dismantling the class system. Reformers have thrown out the baby of authority with the bath water of privilege. And this is a tragedy. Britain has chosen a different kind of liberty, one that does not rest on shared values. That is, it has chosen an American-style liberty, and this will have to be safeguarded in an American way. If violence is the only kind of behaviour police are permitted to counter, then they will be outfitted for countering violence, not for talking to children about keeping the sidewalks tidy. The alternative to maintaining order through consensus is through fear. While Britons are fond of their police, Americans are generally scared of theirs, and go to great lengths to avoid coming to their attention. In 2006, I joined two constables patrolling a rough street in the London neighbourhood of Spitalfields. It shocked me to see a gang of kids shouting insults out of an upper-storey flat. The officers told me that was nothing sometimes those kids threw things. In almost any neighbourhood in the US, the police would ensure that those kids would look back on having done that as the biggest mistake of their lives. Perhaps because Americans fear their police so much, they have great confidence in their efficacy. Any encounter with police is marked by an understanding that one party represents the legitimate authority of the state and one party does not. In recent years, British policemen have been groping for ways of instilling that in the public. Sometimes they have done so irresponsibly, as in the death of Ian Tomlinson, who wandered into the G20 protests in London in 2009 and died after being thrown to the ground by police. When fear-based policing triumphs, the need disappears for sensitivity to local conditions and legitimate gripes. A watershed moment in US policing came in 1968 when Chicago police brutalised hippies protesting outside the Democratic convention polls showed Americans backed the police overwhelmingly. For most Americans, the revelation that Mark Duggan had a real gun when he was killed by Tottenham police last week would have ended any discussion of justice and injustice. It will be clear to any US observer that this draconian vision of policing is in the process of triumphing in Britain. The only serious debate is over how much more leeway the police require. David Cameron has said he does not want to hear about phoney human rights concerns when using CCTV to arrest perpetrators. Whatever tactics police feel they need to employ, they will have legal backing to do so, he says. Public approval of vigilantism e.g. the bat-wielding Turks of Dalston is another sign of this shift. The new consensus is that erring on the side of caution is as dangerous as erring on the side of brutality. Once that is agreed, the police become a different type of organisation. The bobby will not totally disappear. The old style of policing will be maintained for tourists, much as you can still see mounted police on Boston Common. But the real work of the police will henceforth be done through kettling, electronic surveillance and weaponry.
Quite proper now, aye .......... Has tolerance overstayed it's welcome?
What say ye, matey??
Rubbish breifly.
Trying to every subtle using that picture when our police don't automatically go for the baton like your crazy murderous uniformed lot. An NYPD sergeant I had a chat with when there asked if was a fact that British police got by with a notepad and a stick and I said "yep." He shook his head on that one and I am thankful that ours are still unarmed. What your polce give the impression of is a dangerous place and the cops can get away with anything. So if you want to be a murderer in the US get a police uniform as the chance of being done for pumping lots of bullets into someone will mean nothing. You just say you were threatened and everything will be okay. With constant police shootings in multiple bullets not to stop but kill, using the national Guard who are still soldiers never mind the fact they are State controlled, armoured cars and military surplus equipment it gives the impression of a very dangerous country and even more so with gun owners in 9 figures that only adds to it. And as I said those New York ones acting like spoiled childish brats turning their backs on the mayor. What an emotionally kindergarten mentality over there. Thank goodness you broke away centuries ago and created the mess up yourselves. Sigh of relie...phew.
With constant police shootings in multiple bullets not to stop but kill
If the objective is not to kill the subject you are firing at, then you are totally unfit to be holding a firearm, & should never be permitted to have one, much less hold one.
My suggestion to anyone that thinks otherwise ----- carry a pocket of rocks, & prepare to run fast, very fast!
.......... Has tolerance overstayed it's welcome?
No I don't think so. The old tradition of unarmed police in the UK is worth hanging onto.
I picked out a couple of sentences in that article you posted ---
"(in the UK) The alternative to maintaining order through consensus is through fear. While Britons are fond of their police, Americans are generally scared of theirs, and go to great lengths to avoid coming to their attention."I can only speak for the UK - maybe it is like that in the US. maybe not; perhaps others would like to comment on that. But in the UK people do generally like the police although there are exceptions with some communities, certain racial groups and the criminal class. Not that I group those together as automatic bedfellows but any class that has put itself aside or has been put aside is likely to develop an us-versus-them mentality.
Nowadays there is ready access to arms by the police but this is for special units, not the general rule and is only used exceptionally. That policy has led to unarmed police being hurt, that is true, but it does maintain the underlying body of belief that the use of arms on our streets is abnormal and it remains rare albeit that I admit it seems to grow more common.
I have only once seen a policeman hold a gun (where there was some some of operation going on in a motorway service area) aside from ceremonial use. But then I don't live in (insert your own city that you want to insult!).
The gun issue in the U.S. generally resolves to a disagreement between gun advocates (the NRA) and those who are against widespread gun ownership.
Personally, I think that widespread gun ownership has had a negative impact in U.S. life. Having said that, I have had no encounters with people wielding guns. Sadly, that's not the experience of other Americans. Recently, my brother told me of an incident where a bullet went through a window in his house and became lodged in a door just above his sleeping dog. He lives in Detroit, so that's to be expected.
...the larger issue for gun advocates is one of our liberties. For them, the right to bear arms trumps any attempt to dilute the Constitution’s Second Amendment with restrictions on who bears arms, for what purpose, and exactly what sort of arms they’re bearing. Any attempt to encroach on it, even by an iota, will ultimately lead to our enslavement by a federal tyranny. If we have to suffer an occasional mass murder, it is a necessary price we must endure to insure our freedom.
But what does the Second Amendment actually say? Here it is, in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
By lopping off the first half of the sentence, the pro-gun lobby and its apologists have eliminated the Founders’ rationale for this amendment: That those who bore arms did so as members of a well-regulated militia. This was never a license for freelance vigilantism.
Just months before the Constitution was forged, our new nation endured Shays’ Rebellion of 1786-7, in which a militia had to be called out in Massachusetts to suppress an uprising against the government’s fiscal policies before order was restored. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to subdue violent dissent, not enhance it. At the time, we hardly had an army to speak of, so the safest way to ensure the security of the federal and state governments against subversion was “a well-regulated militia.” It derives from Article One of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Second Amendment says nothing about administering personal justice or taking the law into one’s own hands.
The above was excerpted from...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/18/gun-control-foes-misunderstand-the-intent-of-the-second-amendment.html)
That's an interesting article, the remark that those who own arms are presumed to be those belonging to a well regulated militia, is something I've not seen argued in that way before.
I have to qualify the last sentence of my previous post. I should have written that I have not personally seen guns other than on the TV. This is because I have occasionally seen news reports when there has been some outrage committed. So for example some footage was shown yesterday in the context of the Paris shooting.
Totally agree with string and glad we have a polce that do not carry guns especially as what you see elsewhere where a policeman thinks he can do what he damn well likes and get away with it.
The usual cowboy nonsense from our resident terrorts here of course! In fact i did fire a gun once a multiple firing one at an army base years ago in British Ireland (!). Had arranged to visit it whilst I had my Boys' Brigade Company summer camp to it as it allowed such trips. We did the assault course, swimming pool seen the helicopter unit and the shooting range. Actually went two years once one year when the Cheshire regiment in attendance and the next with the Argyle & Sutherland Highlanders). Real soldiers Smiley not like the ones who bomb weddings and kill families. Got the canteen as a well and whatever wanted to eat. So dear cowboy I have experienced a rifle.Have no general interest nor wish to be involved with the childish mindset your corner has over there.
Watched a replay last night of one of the NYC policemen killed and actually saw the NYC turning their backs. How pathetic, politically motivate and childish. not surprised you lot have police problems but you allow them anything so your problem.
Just for you RJ ....... From Dover, with Love (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/smileys/love.png)
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFBUM8dMqw[/VIDEO]
Looks like a "Natural Born Killer" to me ....... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Excellent illustration of the mentality over the pond.
And you only add to my feeling regarding the childishness and immaturity by the way you post with giant letters and illustrations. That is the mindset of a child and why you cannot use the forums in a mature way is your problem. With the amount of crime over there and the ineptitude of police they would be better just singing.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEa5HFczegU#t=26[/video]
It's all Smiley's fault.
Looks like the gentleman from Tennessee is wilting under the ratt-tatt-tatting of the Howie onslaught on imagined American foibles. It never ends ensbb3, so give it up.
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXgA1SFJTBI76w40Nspx6zDL0DTse4eTM7mDvgVSYo7JMNuYJLTw)
Only in his dreams. :P
Give up? Meh. One thing is for sure... I'll keep coming back until I don't come back. ;)
[glow=blue,2,300]Officer Wilson will not be brought up on Civil Rights Charges
by the United States Justice Department, effectively, & completely exonerating
the besmirched Officer of all criminal wrongdoing! [/glow] (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/applause001.gif)
WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and his civil rights chief, Vanita Gupta, will have the final say on whether the Justice Department will close the case against the officer, Darren Wilson. But it would be unusual for them to overrule the prosecutors on the case, who are still working on a legal memo explaining their recommendation.
A decision by the Justice Department would bring an end to the politically charged investigation of Mr. Wilson in the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. The Missouri authorities concluded their investigation into Mr. Brown’s death in November and also recommended against charges.........
Now, I believe that Officer Wilson is owed, & deserves, an apology from a lot of people --- from the shameless
head 'Smearer in Chief' Obama, all the way down the long black line of defaming race-baiters, & unsavory
slanderous charlatans.
Your relative wealth, SF, seems to keep you far from your country… You no longer know those 'others' who you thought were your countrymen. They will not -those who demanded retribution for the actions of Officer Wilson, but not for those of Citizen Brown- apologize for their egregious lapses — of sense, of justice.
Al Sharpton has won this battle. He speaks to a constituency that is ignorant beyond belief; but it has been fostered, by generations of liberal college professors and politicians.
The terms don't matter. (They love to play with words… But take no joy, besides schadenfreude, in it.) These are an under-class — by choice:
They prefer their violence to work, and think they can prosper better by it.
I don't know that they're wrong…in the short run.
Is there a police psychology problem?? (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=472.msg25578#msg25578)
Anyone that wakes up,takes breakfast and starts arresting people or sending people to jail has obviously a psychological problem.
I may agree that organized societies needs to employ such people - polices, judges and the sort - but better not to turn them gods.
In America they turn the police into killers who cannot be charged as they wear a uniform!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bsmeternoboom.gif)In America they turn the police into killers who cannot be charged as they wear a uniform!(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bsmeternoboom.gif)
You hide behind your ranting when everyone knows that when police regularly shoot unarmed possible crims they get away with it. For all the guff about rights, democracy ( :lol:) it would be so easy to turn America into a real Police State. The withering away from the original intentions has been so lengthy and gradual many over there do not fully realise the directions they are going in. Being gun crazy, killing 10,000 a year, police above the law, jails full it tells something more directly honest than all the nonsense about being such a wonderful place!
Being gun crazy, killing 10,000 a year, police above the law, jails full it tells something more directly honest than all the nonsense about being such a wonderful place!
You've never been to Disney World I take it. :knight: :cheers:
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bsflagSM40X75.gif)You hide behind your ranting when everyone knows that when police regularly shoot unarmed possible crims they get away with it. For all the guff about rights, democracy ( :lol:) it would be so easy to turn America into a real Police State. The withering away from the original intentions has been so lengthy and gradual many over there do not fully realise the directions they are going in. Being gun crazy, killing 10,000 a year, police above the law, jails full it tells something more directly honest than all the nonsense about being such a wonderful place!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FTkur6Ik.gif&hash=27b0d85a5b2f7298f59bf392b0dece16" rel="cached" data-hash="27b0d85a5b2f7298f59bf392b0dece16" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/Tkur6Ik.gif)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNfbM7Zx.jpg&hash=a519da33c9ae14b4080c88ce5e7222de" rel="cached" data-hash="a519da33c9ae14b4080c88ce5e7222de" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/NfbM7Zx.jpg)
RJ.......Flap yer America hatin' gums all ya bloody want, you can't do jack diddly about it!.......(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FVy4eden.jpg&hash=059b951157cf062cd978b69f781a1988" rel="cached" data-hash="059b951157cf062cd978b69f781a1988" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/Vy4eden.jpg)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
Must say jseaton2311 that I never visited Disney World on my two visits and didn't need to as one just has to watch what goes on daily in the country at large and it isn't funny.
Well smiley you keep up tha emotional built in psyche of many Americans especially on your political corner. Trouble you are embarrassment to ex-colonists who have a proper brain and know how to use it. Just a pity there isn't a Forum for kindergarten people.However don't ever worry as there are a multitude of head shrinkers over there with legions of nut jobs to help.
You didn't miss anything. Disney is crap. Florida is a big turd too.
Well smiley you keep up tha emotional built in psyche of many Americans especially on your political corner. Trouble you are embarrassment to ex-colonists who have a proper brain and know how to use it. Just a pity there isn't a Forum for kindergarten people.However don't ever worry as there are a multitude of head shrinkers over there with legions of nut jobs to help.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif)
I'm sorry RJ, you must be confusin' me & the millions upon millions of us, with someone that actually gives a flyin' shit what you, or anyone else thinks........carry on.....God will still love yer black heart. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)
You didn't miss anything. Disney is crap. Florida is a big turd too.
Yes, of course. Some people find the whole world is a big turd. Pity really...nothing to enjoy, look forward to, live for; there is a final solution for all that you know. :knight: :cheers:
The Magic Kingdom and Animal Kingdom were okay, not as rundown as the rest. The kid liked. Of course he had no concept of value. Overpriced and hype had no place in his mind. Florida is a big tourist attraction which is something few really likes for long. A week is the most I have or will ever stand to spend there. My opinion works for me. If your melancholia works for you, go with it. When I say something untrue please correct it.
When I say something untrue please correct it.
Okay then, Florida is not a big turd.
White beaches, palm trees, sunshine, warm blue waters, beautiful girls, tropical drinks, the Caribbean, the nightlife and an over all aire of health and well being is my Florida. I suppose you can make Florida whatever your dull mind wants to make of it--or anything else for that matter. I am more in control of my mind and my thoughts than you are, that's all really. Enjoy yourself, wherever you are (or at least try). :knight: :cheers:
Okay then, Florida is not a big turd.
See. not so hard.
White beaches, palm trees, sunshine, warm blue waters, beautiful girls, tropical drinks, the Caribbean, the nightlife and an over all aire of health and well being is my Florida.
Sounds like a brochure, but okay. I was hoping for some insider's tip of what I've missed outside the resorts... Perhaps nothing then?
I am more in control of my mind and my thoughts than you are, that's all really.
Easy cowboy. I'm not presently in the mood to test that assumption.
wherever you are.
It's a mystery I assure you.
Since we've segued into Is there a Florida psychology problem??, I don't think it is that turdy, but with the exception of Miami/Beach I think it is flat and boring. There might be more boring places in the US, but I haven't been there.
Sounds like a brochure, but okay. I was hoping for some insider's tip of what I've missed outside the resorts...
I'm not talking about resorts, I'm talking about my backyard. :knight: :cheers:
Since we've segued into Is there a Florida psychology problem??, I don't think it is that turdy, but with the exception of Miami/Beach I think it is flat and boring. There might be more boring places in the US, but I haven't been there.
Downstate Illinois. Most of Indiana. Iowa. Miles on miles of corn and soybean fields, not even as much as a cow to break the monotony for several miles. Throw in wheat fields in Iowa for extra added boring.
The last time I was to Florida, it didn't seem bad at all. Of course I didn't get that far South in Florida because the place I had to go to was only 70 miles from the Georgia State Line, but at least the Northern part doesn't seem like that bad a deal. That was a couple of years back now. Before that--- I was a boy, visiting relatives in Jacksonville and swimming in the Atlantic not too far away from there.
Since we've segued into Is there a Florida psychology problem??, I don't think it is that turdy, but with the exception of Miami/Beach I think it is flat and boring. There might be more boring places in the US, but I haven't been there.
I used to live in Tallahassee, Florida.
Then there is, Spring Hill, Tennessee. I moved here a couple of months ago and live in the quietist place under the sun. Given my life, boring is good.
But I've been a few places earlier: Mississippi for a short time, Hawaii for a year and a half, Guam for two years with visits to the Philippines and Japan, then to Korea for a couple of years.
Guam was the most boring of all those places.
Miles on miles of corn and soybean fields, not even as much as a cow to break the monotony for several miles.
Poor flatlanders. I found the big skies of Texas to be equally as boring. What passes for hills in much of the state are on ramps to overpasses. Trees seem accidental.
...
I like topography and complaining about the seasons. Not a fan of sand in everything so give me a cool rocky creek bed. Perhaps the nightlife and las señoritas don't sway me as they once did either.
I'm not talking about resorts, I'm talking about my backyard.
Nice. I hear some old folks really love it there.
It's a mystery I assure you.
That Tennessee flag might give you away. :)
I have never been to a boring place.
Of course I always have me for company.
That Tennessee flag might give you away. :)
Shhh! You'll give me away! :P
I see you're repping the Scots this week.
Nice. I hear some old folks really love it there.
I suppose they do--I just don't know any old folks, except my Dad and he lives in Iowa. :knight: :cheers:
I suppose they do--I just don't know any old folks, except my Dad and he lives in Iowa.
That's interesting, I know quite a few older people.
(yay) I made a demographics joke and you didn't get it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Florida)
(yay) I made a demographics joke and you didn't get it.
Glad I could brighten your otherwise lackluster day. :knight: :cheers:
And yet another regular police incident this time in Michigan where a group of policeman beat up a man including kicking him in the head. At least there is continuity in such actions and the chance of them not getting away with it of course.
Your life is drowning in the pettiness of country-bashing rj. You will not gain friends or influence people in this fashion. Try getting a a grip on a real life and see what you can do. :knight: :cheers:
I am afraid that is too easy an answer and not one at all. The US is so, so easy to bash. Mainly because it struts about the world trying to force itself on everyone and give the corporate business empire greatness and militatary boot s on anyone who dares not to accept the US way. You do all the silly global stuff whilst tens of millions of poor live in the land that claims to be so great. Oh and the 2.4 million in jails! If you toned your country down abit and spent more money on your own suffering people instead of uniforms you would get respect.
Anywa, as for the matter of police there is another very public and very in your face problem which you ignore unfortunately. This police violence IS a a way of life in cities and time after time the world has seen regular reports of public beatings on unarmed people. Why does a policeman feel there is a need for example to say he has to shoot an unarmed man? Totally illogical and very immature thinking. What is worse is when they fire more than one and on occasion a whole list of bullets. Wear a uniform over there and you are a hero and safe and very, very rarely is a policeman ever dealt with in these horrible reactions. Even when there is a possible danger for police the reaction is ridiculous. Another famous one was the call that a man was on a street with a knife. The police car arrived, 2 officers got out and demanded the man dropped the knife. That is fair enough but the man just stood there but didn't make any linge at the officers. Within seconds both fired their guns at the man!
With so many incidents right across America you can hardly ignore that there is something fundemntally odd and you have a very deep and divise colour problem. The jails are almost black centres and the numbers killed by police are way by far black. I could see you having a point if there was nothing to go on but just jumping on a easy excuse of I am bashing is NOT dealing with the problem. This is a forum and a wide church and i am not on it for to get some false popularity aim. It does not bother me as to whether anyone has a petted lip mentality because the thread subject is such a diabolical, disturbing and bad image for your country. Being gun mad and a massive jail population along with gunslingers in uniform is more of a challenge than me! :(
Rj, you're obsessed with that skinny view of the US. It must have something to do with your colonial mindset.
Not so much an obsession but a very stark thought on what is actually the truth. If these incidents were not happening (as well as a very national and deep racial problem all the time then you would have some strong principle to fall back on. Mind you I should remind you have an obsession with a certain President of a certain big country - oh and the country itself! Just shows how easy it is for grey cell ex-colonists to be wearing blinkers. And is the increasing militarisation of city police forces a wee corner thing too? Nope
Thank goodness the country is not a colony as it is gun daft, police-come-soldiers daft. Ditching the tea in Boston Harbour has turned out to have been a big error of judgement by those laddies from the monied families as too much coffee affects people. Thank goodness the mistakes were over 200 years ago and we can go "phew" and relax. :o :D
There's a general population psychology problem.
You are giving an excuse for the semi-military police forces across the pond who think they can do what they like. Tut-tut.
No rjhowie, I said that there's a general population psychology problem, therefore, by force of reason, there's an even bigger police psychology problem for the simple fact police are chosen from the worst of general population psychology problem.
Eye-rising headline: American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374908/-American-police-killed-more-people-in-March-111-than-in-the-entire-United-Kingdom-since-1900)
The number isn't fully quality controlled, from the Killed by police (http://www.killedbypolice.net/) web site, but the approach is sound.
Ok a fair point Belfrager and can go with that. The city police forces in that mass prison hell and semi-military police over there is a reflection on a society physco situation. That the nature of policing in that country reflects a gun mad society says something. That they sometimes have to have soldiers on the streets is another telling and all the previous nonsense that they were not regular army is a sidestep as they are in practice a kind of reserve army in their structure and doings. Thank heavens routine police here are unarmed and maybe if those over the water had gradually distanced themselves from the wild west inheritance and the aftermath there would be less problems and unarmed people wouldn't get willy-nilly shot down or have 2.4 million for the taxpayer to cover in jails.
Now wadda ye know a gun mad policeman actually arrested for murder. The racial thing in so many polie forces over there well encapsulated in this latest of continuing incidents. Instead of chasing him or flooring him he pumps 8 bullets into a man then when the dying man is lying there handcuffs him?? Now if he had not been filmed you can bet he would have got away with lying. We all know there will be reasonable police but there is a very wide and deep running racial issue with police in America. The family of the murdered man was very considerate and a contrast to what the police nut job thinking too often is. Especially if you are black. And it all started with a stop for a faulty car. That cop would have got away with his lies like all the rest have but for the startling visual evidence. What a dice throw you have over there with police. Disgusting.
wadda ye know
You remember me a nigger I had working at my properties in Africa. Strangely, he doesn't posts here...
The problem with all those murders by American policemen is not a problem of racism, it's a problem of cowards. Armed cowards.
What you two are missing is that nationalism is just the name you give acceptable racism.
he problem with all those murders by American policemen is not a problem of racism, it's a problem of cowards.
Seems you'd be qualified to know.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn7B6mUdCeA[/video]
---
Scotland's problem may be as simple as large amounts of morons thinking they are smart.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCqMbbLCIg0[/video]
The videos I found regarding abuses of power seemed as much a problem of encountering too many idiots as anything else.
Of course there's...
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_67Eml_QCyU[/video]
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGUVOABeCaI[/video]
Is that a black man laying on the ground? Nice.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdoS_Cf3J6c[/video]
Bullying. It's not that different there.
Have I missed the point?
Do you claim that last video is an example of bullying?
Edit: I then watched the clip of the little prick with the law book. The policemen in both cases acted with the patience of saints.
Do you claim that last video is an example of bullying?
Looks like I got a tab mixed up. Most of the ones I saw
were just dumb-asses trying to catch cops breaking "Da Rulez". If there's any point it all, I missed it too.
Eye-rising headline: American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374908/-American-police-killed-more-people-in-March-111-than-in-the-entire-United-Kingdom-since-1900)
IMHO it's definitive not a simple psychologic problem. In case it is, then it's only a side effect and not the root of the problem.
BTW, another somehow related interesting aspect worth to be mentioned:
The United States has about five percent of the world’s population and houses around 25 percent of its prisoners.
source (http://billmoyers.com/2013/12/16/land-of-the-free-us-has-5-of-the-worlds-population-and-25-of-its-prisoners/)
As to the stereotyped argument that government acts as a check on crime and vice, even the makers of law no longer believe it. This country spends millions of dollars for the maintenance of her “criminals” behind prison bars, yet crime is on the increase. Surely this state of affairs is not owing to an insufficiency of laws! Ninety per cent of all crimes are property crimes, which have their root in our economic iniquities. So long as these latter continue to exist we might convert every lamp-post into a gibbet without having the least effect on the crime in our midst.
Emma Gold - born June 27, 1869 / died May 14, 1940
Eye-rising headline: American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374908/-American-police-killed-more-people-in-March-111-than-in-the-entire-United-Kingdom-since-1900)
One suspects that the Indians (and other colonials) weren't deemed important enough to be considered… :)
Eye-rising headline: American police killed more people in March (111) than the entire UK police have killed since 1900 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/04/01/1374908/-American-police-killed-more-people-in-March-111-than-in-the-entire-United-Kingdom-since-1900)
Wrong quote. Booze at late night? :)
What an utterly pointless extract regarding Strathclyde Police. No evidence just an allegation so nothing. How this contrasts with film of a cop shooting 8 bullets after a man running away is completely infantile and stupid. No comparison at all. To try and compare an allegation with no visual evidence against regular police killing over the pond is laughable just as tt92 is. Mind you the begorrah mindset of the Aussie would make him an excellent city cop in the ex-colonies.
Here you will not get gunned down for a traffic offence or an incident but over in America a cop will use any excuse to draw a damn gun and blow people away because the excuse is the cop felt endangered. Not surprised there are so many police shootings of unarmed folk there with that emotional kindergarten mindset.
No evidence just an allegation so nothing.
You'd convict American cops on less.
How this contrasts with film of a cop shooting 8 bullets after a man running away is completely infantile and stupid.
Indeed. He's going to prison for murder. Bet they'll love [on] him in there.
I advocated cameras being worn by police early in this thread. The technology exists along with the reason too. Not just to protect the public but also the officers. Since then cameras are starting to be added as standard issue by police forces. I'm sure your precious telly hasn't informed you of the changes or prevention methods, to stop such things, that are now coming on-line. My State is debating adding cameras and my county's sheriff's office has already budgeted to add them by next year. I'm sure you have no idea why those are separate things, jurisdiction across the Atlantic confuses you.
I do have to say that it is unfortunately it is well overdue for the city police there to wear cameras as there have been far too many such incidents as this latest horror. A while back someone tried to say these things were remote and now nationally their is an admittance they are not. This present policeman would I can bet have got away with it likeall the others before him but for that vido witnessing what went on. He would have lied or come up with some stupid excuse he was under threat so one has to ge shot. A hail of bullets was becoming the standard situation. Interestingly there was no attempt at any medical effort and even when other police arrived an they had equipment it wasn't bothered with.
It is a terrible thing that these things go on every wek or couple of weeks and 9 times out of the proverbial 10 it seems to be unarmed black men. That has become ovious at government level and organisations like the FBI looking into this habit. Allied to this is the poor numbers of black officers and the fact that there is a very deep national racial problem and in the police which is more dangerous. Makes me even more thankful our police are not patrolling with guns.
You, for the most part, write words.
Nothing is ever said.
How many well trained cops are needed for beating a man lying on the ground with his arms on his back?
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGjFXuGjJxE[/video]
After six or seven it seems to get crowded. People are getting shoved out of the action. Most efficiently it looks like three. Plenty of swinging room and there's still space to accommodate other's potshots if they rotate.
At one point the reporter says 11. For goodness sake that many? We heard all about this latest disgusting fiasco on our news programmes but seeing the video is even worse which is disturbingly they continue such events. Doesn't seem to matter that reports are made on police behaviour as they just keep going from one incident to another. There is a problem.
At one point the reporter says 11.
Seriously. No more than six or seven could get around him at one time. Were that many on the scene? Sure. This is micro-sensationalism. The picture you want to paint isn't even something that can happen. It's already horrible. That being said you have to realize southern California is as remote to me as Portugal.
A small breakdown of jurisdictions may help show how this "epidemic" is merely a case of exposure. Nothing is necessarily "on the rise".
I'll assume this is in a rural part of S. Cali given the horse, but regardless police forces have different funding. The Feds are funded by the US Gov. then States fund their own force then counties then cities. Not every police force is well funded or qualified. Depends on the area. Is there a police psychology problem? There can be. That much is proven. I do believe officers go bad and I even think it can spread to or result from entire departments. You hear more about white officers committing offenses against blacks because they are brought up as Civil Rights violations. This would make the Federal gov have to get involved, if true, otherwise it falls to the jurisdiction it happened in.
I am afraid that is too easy an answer and not one at all. The US is so, so easy to bash. Mainly because it struts about the world trying to force itself on everyone and give the corporate business empire greatness and militatary boot s on anyone who dares not to accept the US way.
What in hell is the U.S.? That's like saying that Brits are jerks because of their past history.
Uh-oh sloppy answer! We are not talking about history but daily, weekly life over there as you well enough know. I can assure you I have no control over what passes for police in your cities so will sit back with my diet Irn bru confidentially and sigh with a smile. Can get by with that petted lip but you should have saved it up for something else rather than this regular black shooting or beating up blacks in what is meant to be police. :(
US police seems curiously deadly for a country not under oppression nor in a state of civil war.
Clearly you Americans owe rjhowie a great debt of gratitude for him selflessly offering to share his considerable wit, wisdom, and insights into handling this national scourge. If you open up to him I am sure he might be willing to show you how to successfully approach all American ailments.
:)
jax!
it was passed into law in the spring of 1919. This brought matters to a head. The nationalists, stigmatizing the Rowlatt law as the "Black Cobra Act," were unmeasured in their condemnation. The extremists engineered a campaign of militant protest and decreed the date of the bill's enactment, April 6, 1919, as a national "Humiliation Day." On that day monster mass-meetings were held, at which nationalist orators made seditious speeches and inflamed the passions of the multitude. "Humiliation Day" was in fact the beginning of the worst wave of unrest since the mutiny. For the next three months a veritable epidemic of rioting and terrorism swept India, particularly the northern provinces. Officials were assassinated, English civilians were murdered, and there was wholesale destruction of property. At some moments it looked as though India were on the verge of revolution and anarchy.
[Lothrop Stoddard. The New World of Islam (Kindle Locations 3491-3497).]
This was one of but many things you never mention; you may, of course, be ignorant — when particular charges are made; but you can't be — if you claim intelligence and/or concern.
I can testify to your lack of intelligence. You yourself have provided enough evidence of your "lack of concern"…
Howie, for some reason, you've decided to dislike the U.S.; and for some (perhaps other reason) you've decided to attack it with whatever wit you have, for as long as you can. You have little wit; we can all agree on that. And, that your animosity is older than most of us, is indisputable…
Was it you personally that shot Gandhi? :)
Oh dear that national obsession of ex-colonists being like spoiled children shows up well Oakdale. I have said for some time that all you lot need to do is go through the list of many things that totally go against all you claim to be. None of those i listed in Opera or indeed here have ever been able to be answered properly or at all. It would not be so bad if you as a country were less lippy in the world at large, claim all sorts of hig faluting principles whilst at the same time your own history bunks those. On rights, freedoms, racialism, interference your history is littered with in the face hypocrisy. In fact you would be able to knock me out by just practicing the principles falsely claimed.
But nope that is not possible as you lot have been brought up under a tremendously successful propagandist mind. Emotion and hypocrisy all at the same time! The over the top "patriotism" is another in the face nationalism in practice. Like kids the flag has to be everywhere, rows in front of buildings, every classroom and everywhere except the toilet. Ooops, someone may correct that. So when someone comes along and has a throw it cannot be handled and the attitude is a bit politically miffed instead of being practical! When someone comes along and hits that I hate Americans it shows the emotional kindergarten mindset. They cannot see the difference between the way a country is run and the people inside it. Others more normal outside can work out the difference and it shows he lack there is of much outside of the narrow views across there on the rest of us.
So I tell you what. Accept there are regular police problems - a history of deep racial divide - that corporates control the Hill- the military/imperial/commercial empire across the world should be controlled - tens of millions of poor faced - millions losing homes helped - email/bank accounts/credit card spying controlled - less infringements on rights that contradict the constitution and - stop killing innocent people with drones (increased) - causing wars. Oh heavens, I have made your chance of sorting me out even harder. It doesn't matter how much i may like any Americans the way all haver been brought up shoves many of the negatives to one side in this daftness that i am miscalling the country.Instead of solving terror you have made the damn thing worse but hey keep waving the flag it will keep you happy!
You DO have a city police problem. Surprise, surprise!!
As for this particular thread a moan as usual but these stormtrooper police incidensts Oakdale are semi-regular in YOUR country and I don't make them up but are not some needle in a haystack they are there all the damn time because you have never grown up on guns and uniforms or how deep the race question is in a land that blows about being what it is.
less lippy
For the record. I quit reading right here.
On rights, freedoms, racialism, interference your history is littered with in the face hypocrisy.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F8%2F8c%2FThe-queens-dominions.jpg&hash=ba60657447c7653b399e3edc8e66ca74" rel="cached" data-hash="ba60657447c7653b399e3edc8e66ca74" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/The-queens-dominions.jpg)
As for this particular thread a moan as usual but these stormtrooper police incidensts Oakdale are semi-regular in YOUR country and I don't make them up but are not some needle in a haystack they are there all the damn time because you have never grown up on guns and uniforms or how deep the race question is in a land that blows about being what it is.
I still don't get it: Whence your animosity… But get back to me when Great Britain has a negroid queen…to show you commitment to "democracy". :)
Your grasp of numbers does you in,
RJ. That, and your inability to go much beyond what your telly gives you -in combination, make you incapable of forming rational opinions — about circumstances that seem to matter to you.
I'd ask again: What about the U.S. so engages your ire?
(Another guess: You attempted to emigrate, and were rejected? :) I could believe that!)
My grasp of numbers does you in? You need fresh air boy. Some 10,000 shot to bits annually, 2.4 million in jails, re million losing homes a year, 40 million poor on food stamps, regular police shooting of unarmed people and usually blacks. I don't need to make them up they are factual but you lot don't want to know it. And as usual you cannot take the truth and instead waffle off and flannel. That utterly daft nonsense from jimbro re The Monarch. Someone should tell him a Monarchy is different from a Republic and that it is an inherited title. In the House of Lords where the majority of peers are not hereditary but lifetime there is a whole group of Asian and black peers. We have also had a woman Prime Minister yet you lot after over two centuries have never had a woman President. Another typical example of being unable to accept what happens over there and all these things in the land of the fee and home of the brave? Yeah, right the fact say something else. It took you over 2 centuries to stop the lynching and persecution of the blacks and give many in places even the right to vote! The vast majority in the jails happen to have dark complexions and the social probs run deep but you don't like to be reminded because the cumfy on live in their sydilic comfort and play along with the would-be patriotic guff.
As for your nationwide police these incidents are happening all the time and yes they do appear on tv screens here - latest incident was in California! Trouble is with your gun culture give someone a uniform and a gun and he thinks he is it. You have even had the army on streets, city police forces getting surplus military vehicles on top of those other negatives I mention makes the country a kind of laughing stock. If it was not the case that in legal things, crime, police violence (along with their increased militarism),full jails, vast poverty, racism in mass amounts then you could really boast with confidence and wave the flag. Trouble is the truth upsets the cumfortables who think if they ignore the in your face stuff then everything is fine.
As for the basic question of the police - you have a problem and the statistics show it whether it is in a book, newspaper, television but you Oakdale ignore the messengers because it doesn't suit! :doh:
And last night on a television report about the police over the water it showed another two incidents. One was where a police car was chasing a thief who was running on the pavement so the police car chased him and drove right across the road onto the pavement to knock the man down! In the other clip someone filmed policemen with a woman suspect and the female was pregnant but you could see them constantly punching her several times no matter what.
The problem continues no matter what. The problem is deep.
I wonder when someone will wake up and realize that, worst than a police psychology problem, it's a judge's psychology problem.
Well unfortunately Belfrager there is so much of a psychology mass problem they wouldn't notice the judges. Too many of the police over there could fit into the Ukraine Right Sector with no problem at all!
I watched a programme on television last night about the dreadful police record in the ex-colonies. In a month there were more police killing of people than we have had for years. It also brought up someting of even more concern. The average training of what passes for police over the pond is about 40 hours but runs into hundreds here. Here there has to be a high education standard and the indepth training includes just about everything even handling people with mental trouble and everything else. We don't carry guns just a truncheon, handcuffs and in places a taser but not everywhere. Our police do not run a car onto a pavement to knock a man being chased down, kill unarmed possible wrong doers and so on. In march there were around 140 polie killins over the water and multiply that nationally. After such brief training the cop in America thinks he is above the law and get away with anything and the regular incidents now being recorded are typical. One where the police were arresting someone to put in a van had a bystander filming the thing on her mobile phone. A policeman came over and grabbed the phone off the woman threw it on the ground and stamped on it to destroy the evidence.
It is not a case of some very odd or remote thing it is regular every month. They think those that pass for defenders of Americans that once they have a badge, uniform and gun they are it.. We are talking about invoduals being done in. Hey, don't bother running after them as our polcie would do or if needed hit them with the baton just stop and shoot the person. That some use more than one bullet also shows the arrogance of a bad mind using a badge and uniform. The usual excuse about firing 3, 4, 5 and as we know, 6 bullets is because the cop felt "threatened." Gee what mental cases there are acting as policemen. I know Americans love uniforms and they are oft used to the wrong point but there is a serious problem.
The more the police buy spare military stuff from the Pentagon the more the place looks like a hell-hole and almost military State. Many countries have fat=r better trained police than the would-be land of brilliance. Military armoured vehicles, same with equipment, and now a town where the police have all publicly intimated they want to shut down as a back mayor was elected. You lot are living in a creepoing military control and high time there was more control overso-called defenders of the law and people. Instead too many have become dangerous and undermine a weak system.
Domestically these United States operate differently than you can apparently comprehend.
Truth is America is vast. You can say almost anything about it and find somewhere that's true.
Domestically these United States operate differently than you can apparently comprehend.
Truth is America is vast. You can say almost anything about it and find somewhere that's true.
Oh, so very true. Once the CNNs of the world glom onto a story it seeps into every major city and township. Lordy, we're all horrendous! I've mentioned earlier that there were two cops in my family and they never shot anybody.
It bears repeating the the UK has done awful things in the world. Lately, though, they've behaved quite well.
We all now know about the horrors of concentration camps, but during the time of Boer Wars, rounding up tens of thousands of innocent people and detaining them in camps seemed like a stroke of genius. The British needed the South African populace under control and had the means and manpower to detain them. What could possibly go wrong?
.......................
10 percent of the entire Boer population died in the British camps—a figure that gets even worse when you realize it includes 22,000 children.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keepcalmstudio.com%2F_gallery%2F300%2Fpe7tsA.png&hash=7ccf6fd1fdf2167b545b0f8c2bd5168a" rel="cached" data-hash="7ccf6fd1fdf2167b545b0f8c2bd5168a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.keepcalmstudio.com/_gallery/300/pe7tsA.png)
We know the country is vast ensbb3 but that is no excuse for what is going on everywhere regarding police. When you consider what is recorded monthly it is something else! Training is inefficient the racial aspect is endemic and whatever they learn is something very basic and not as wide as training elsewhere. I would also remind the incidents happening in lists every month tend to be in places that are built up ones or towns/cities. The latest incident where a man ends up badly beaten and no medical treatment for over 40 minutes then is dead makes the whole police question wide open. There is more to being a policeman than a badge, uniform and gun whoever it seems that those 3 things are it in general and stuff anything else. That these things keep continuing illustrates a very deep problem. So in countries where carrying guns is not the norm and officers more fully trained in all different matters is saying something.
I can remember having a chat one my second visit to the USA and NYC having a friendly chat with a police sergeant on duty. He was obviously a very intelligent man yet when he said to me was it right that our police just get by with a notebook and a baton I said yes. He looked at me and shook his head with a touch of wonderment. With the police in the States becoming more militarised by the week it is not helping and does not give a very good picture or encouragement for the future as it gives a bad impression of the way the country is going on policing.
There is a discussion to be had about the problems involved. You're just not having it.
RJ "discusses" as well as he punctuates… :)
We know the country is vast ensbb3 but that is no excuse for what is going on everywhere regarding police.
The word "everywhere" is
Howie's trope: If he's seen something on TV a time or two then it's pandemic!
His panties are always in a twist…
You two are as bad as each other.Even if is on tv that is even more to the damn point than bodyswerving it. After all it is YOUR problem. Well over 100 shootings LAST MONTH alone are just fictitious are they/ Oakdale you make yourself look stupid which is a nerve accusing others. It is ludicrous trying to swipe me when it is a major problem in your land. Los Angeles and New York for an example are abou
Your police can do what they damn well like because you folk are besotted with uniforms. They get far less training than for example here and it is painfully obvious that your polce are far more likely to shoot someone running away than chasing them.t 3000 miles apart, incidents also north and south so it is everywhere whether you like to hear it or not. It has been a long term thing and the policemen who do these disgusting things know they will get away with it because you folks go dilly dolly about badge and uniform and boy do they know it. Shooting unarmed in the back shows a physco problem too and they know that the norm is to get away with it. So you have had this stff for decades but governments have just skipped around it. Where else in the normal world would you get a town police force all wanting to quite because someone of another colour is elected mayor? Your cops are gun mad because the country is.
On top iof all this you also dance around the increasing militarising of the police and that can give a very good impression things are that dam bad it has to be done. Yeah, right. If governments skirt police arrogance and also make them look like soldiers, let them think they are the law you have a big, big difficulty. And ant-black is deep too. It is painfully obvious to people elsewhere in the world that in the main your police are not capable of handling differing situations and therefore the answer is just to shoot someone, or strangle them to death or beat them up and kill. It is the first stumbling steps towards a military State attitude.
You people live there so it is not upto me to solve your deep rooted and historical police corruption it is yours. That the media reports on it or police steal your phone to smash it and stop filming is ignored especially by you Oakdale. Being incapable of facing the mattersatire is not the answer. You have an A1 police problem. If wanting them to continue being so cocky and military like and getting excess military stuff from the Pentagon why not get them SS gear? :whistle:
One trick pony.
dilly dolly
Dillydally :left: Pretty much sums up your post.
Pathetic waste of time. Stop looking at the keyboard. The amount of stupid in that post doesn't deserve a response so consider this charity.
I like how qualifications have made it into your rants ever since I brought it up. A more clever man wouldn't make it so obvious.
No you are doing what you clowns over the pond always do when something as blatant as your police completely contradicts all those would-be principles you blare out to the world. What is going on over there in the hundreds annually is so routine for decades it has been accepted. You are incapable of answering the matter and the poor city policing you have. That many are not bright enough are gun mad and not of a goodly education says much. You should get out the country and look at it from that stance and the increasing militarisation of your police is the first modest step to a more dictatorial society. Scoff away or make some snide comment but you DO have a police predicament but as is the norm you don't like to be put in a position of admitting such faults as it contradicts all that fine stuff about how wonderful the place is.
Beating ups (sometime causing deaths), choking to death, shooting unarmed suspects, driving cars onto pavements to stop a man fleeing, bullets in the back, sometimes a selection of them at that. It is a continuing story and if it cannot be answered you are better keeping your mouth shut. In fact the behaviour of police is equal to that in dictatorships but you have such a pathetic attitude to unifroms and badges it is a key to doing what they damn well like.
Your police are very polite, RJ… Explain to me how the events in Rotherham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham#Child_Abuse_Scandal) occurred!
What you'd accept is different from what we "ex-colonists" would… (When you say "Quit you like men…" I thought you'd meant "Acquit…". It turns out, you really meant quit!
Yellow and Red does really equal Orange…
Dillydally :left: Pretty much sums up your post.
You've never heard of "dilly dolly"?
https://www.facebook.com/dillydollydesignsbunting (https://www.facebook.com/dillydollydesignsbunting)
The latest incident where a man ends up badly beaten and no medical treatment for over 40 minutes then is dead makes the whole police question wide open. There is more to being a policeman than a badge, uniform and gun whoever it seems that those 3 things are it in general and stuff anything else. That these things keep continuing illustrates a very deep problem. So in countries where carrying guns is not the norm and officers more fully trained in all different matters is saying something.
I don't understand what you're arguing. What does "makes the whole police question wide open" mean?
What does this mean?
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By JAMES SLACK FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 18:14 EST, 2 July 2009
View comments
Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz3YaoA3jMx (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz3YaoA3jMx)
One thing is clear to me: There are thugs on both sides of the law.
Oh for goodness sake jimbro. I said that the police service over there has had these incidents for decades and today what do i see on the news? Your President saying the same thing! Doesn't matter what the 2 giant corporate backed so-called political parties are i power it still happens. Like others here you limp into daft corner just like them. And now the usual American trait of trying to direct us away from the indepth problem of your police. Does the UK police go shooting all over the place like yours/ are ours better trained - yep. In a year we probably get about half a dozen incidents in a year where a suspect is shot out of over 60 million. So that ratio should mean about 30 a year in the US but it is in 3 figures every damn month. To try and equate our violence and that of Europe on the scale of America is really something else. Here a policeman armed with a truncheon, handcuffs and a notebook would physically chase a suspect rather than over there where th tendency to shoot someone in the back is standard. not one but several shots for the officer's "protection."
Even intelligent Americans of so-called liberal persuasion slide easily into diverting the issue. Now it is Baltimore that mayhem has descended on and yes again with soldiers on the streets. So before some cracker says otherwise the National Guard IS a military. I dare say letting policemen regularly beat to death, shoot unarmed, break the spin, mount the pavement with a squad car to knock down are all okay. What a problem you have with what passes for police. Even that cop who had to be arrested wouldn't chase the unarmed man instead he fired repeatedly into the culprit's back and would have got away with it. Smashing mobile phones to stop witnessing is an easy direction because officers think they can do what they damn well like. Using the gun is far to acceptable for no good reason. In fact that arrested officer didn't bother himself at all that the man having been shot several times in the back wasn't moving he cared nothing and instead handcuffed him. Immediate medical measurement did NOT follow as in other places. Hey maybe shooting dead is a police way of controlling the 2.4 million in jails?!
That Obama is saying exactly the same thing as i do maybe you should write to the white House and complain but considering the scores shot every month maybe that might be negative. Violence is one thing but the national record of your police not in remote instances but as regular as anything are so common place there is no defence just attempts to body-swerve rather than admit it. Maybe in hindsight you might want to face Obama's stance....!
I subscribe entirely rjhowie's opinion about American police and, specially, American culture.
Four hundred and ninety nine millions of Europeans does the same.
We are an evil people.
Of course there are sensibles jimbro but too many of your politicians and police are. Says something about the system. Maybe we people in Europe see better looking from outside the cauldron.
When were you going to answer the "situation" in Rotherham I asked about…? Eh, RJ?
Noted and thanks Belfrager. Now for the drunk stuck in an armchair.
You well fit the unusable description of the brain dead in America Oakdale. What the hell is the comparison between that English town and the despicable happenings in YOUR police all over your country? Always the same try and find something to clutch on to rather than face up to YOU diabolical national problem. Public beatings up in Los Angeles, choked to death in New York, spine broken in Baltimore and incidents from north to south it is nationwide and just about everywhere. I watched an interview of a city councillor in Baltimore who stated that the police are not held in any high regard in his city and that things happening to anyone stuck into a police van are a regular worry.
Your country yaks so much about how great it is, high principles, and a beacon for the world. Oh yeah. Your telephone, pc, etc are not safe, terror groups in the world supported, wars created. Millions inside the place in wide scale poverty in the tens of millions. Police forces continually having incidents of injuring people deliberately, shooting unarmed people, several in the back when a person is running and your own government admits there is a deep problem. But says something about your politicians does it not? After all this police brutality has been standard for decades and longer as Obama has known but you cannot answer the usual charges that make your country look like the World's number one hypocrite with a capital 'H.'
When you cannot deal with the charges you do as is normal here and try to do a dance bu the problem is too deep for you or anyone else to get away with it. Race is another deep issue and too many police over there have a deep seated attitude and lack of professionalisms and nowadays with mobile phone cameras they casn be seen more easily and that niggles them to the point of phone smashing. With a 3-figure monthly problem try and face it and acknowledge that there is something very wrong going on and especially for blacks. You are a gun bonkers nation and that so much of the police servie is gung-ho is hardly surprising so try sticking to the big problem instead of making yourself look stupid.
What the hell is the comparison between that English town and the despicable happenings in YOUR police all over your country?
All over
your country, police fail to enforce the law and even abet the vilest of crimes — for fear of angering "politically correct" sensibilities regarding race and religion!
I suspect the policy decisions of
your country's ruling-class preferred this to scandal; but they got scandal anyway.
How,
RJ, does an occasional death by police misconduct
here compare with hundreds of child-rapes ignored over long years? In one small town? By both police and political authorities?
You don't like little girls…? (Ask your psychiatrist what
that means… As a Scotsman, I'm sure you'll appreciate his answer.)
Hide under your bed! (That's where you'er likely to find the constable you expect to come to your aid: You're the "wrong" color and the "wrong" religion to have real political cover…)
Maybe you should write some of your constitution down, so that others will be constrained to recognize it…
Nah! You're a Quisler -at heart.
How, RJ, does an occasional death by police misconduct here compare with hundreds of child-rapes ignored over long years? In one small town? By both police and political authorities?
Besides constantly (not "occasional" as you say), deaths by your police, would you mind to speak about "your" hundreds of child rapes before start accusing the ones that are right showing the American putrefaction?
Course not, America is the land of the Braves and, as we all know, Braves don't child rape, just the old colonizers do.
Try J&B, that's what I drink, that lousy Bourbon of yours is melting your gray cells.
Well, Belfrager, I haven't had more than an "occasional" beer in years… :)
But when the authorities have become afraid to mention -let alone punish- crimes, something has gone horribly wrong!
That human depravity is well-distributed across the nations is hardly disputable.* That political and police powers have succumbed in some to puerile and pusillanimous motives is the more reprehensible, I think.
——————————————————————————————
* However, if you read the Ten Measures of Wisdom (quoted on pgs. 188-189 of Graves' King Jesus 81-12459), you might dispute it — on the basis of ancient lore.
Always the same try and find something to clutch on
to rather than face up to YOU diabolical national problem. Public beatings up in Los Angeles, choked to death in New York,
spine broken in Baltimore and incidents
The police statistics are but an indication of a larger and more complex social problem and our current president certainly understands that, whereas you do not--you merely enjoy bitching at America for some unknown pathological reason. We look at our great technological advances and wonder how & why our conduct is still so primitively atrocious. Our technological advances are simply outpacing our ability to socially govern ourselves even on a small scale, much less worldwide. It seems that until there is a world government where people realize we are all in this together, our species may indeed perish or at least be regressed back into the caves for not having surpassed the uranium barrier.
Social, economical and educational gaps in this world will have to narrow considerably (through a slow natural evolution),
before we can even modestly begin to proclaim that the human species is at the top of the heap of living organisms on this planet. We teeter on the brink of self-extinction, how intelligently superior is that to a mongoose?
You point to problems, then you scoff, laugh, ridicule and criticize without a single suggestion or hint of a solution yourself. Is this your lot in life rj, to be an impotent cynic? You accuse Oakdale of being the armchair quarterback that you are--and Oakdale has better thoughts than you...but then so does a sea slug. The evolution of all things human, turtles along too slow to get so worked up about any single factor--we have checks and balances at work behind the scene for everything. :knight: :cheers:
How well one politics for a position, sadly, isn't synonymous with how qualified they are for the job. I imagine that holds true for most places. Almost silly how much could be fixed there.
The welfare and penal systems have bred career criminals and gang structure. Escalation of police deaths in the 90's led to progressively more forceful measures being allowed. (I remember it was a pretty big deal when a percentage of State Troopers were issued assault rifles here.) Following 9/11 the police were encouraged to militarize pending terrorist attacks. And that's where we are...
If you ask me, regardless of race, anyone dies in police custody it's a Civil Rights violation. State sovereignty is the reason the Federal Gov doesn't jump in every time asap. They can easily hop in too soon, everything go wrong and undermine its authority with the other States in future issues.
That human depravity is well-distributed across the nations is hardly disputable.* That political and police powers have succumbed in some to puerile and pusillanimous motives is the more reprehensible, I think.
Yes, I agree. Symptoms of a world where no one knows anymore where the real centers of decisions are and we just have access to the clown puppets that govern us all.
Wha'? Conspiracy theories or do you wanna know alllllll the details? Neither is a practical thought. :knight: :cheers:
Conspiracy theories or do you wanna know alllllll the details?
jseaton, you clearly aren't up to date with the main advanced political science concerns about sovereignty, representativity and state's autonomy in general.
:) Perhaps, Belfrager, you'd be good enough to list some few of these…?
Why should I require to offer a solution jseaton2311 or anyone else over there? It is your country your very obvious vast, deep and very long nightmare. It is easy to say i scoff but don't add that claim to the others. It has been a deep rooted part of the police culture and it does say something about training and indeed the equally deep racialism involved. There is also something else to be concerned about and that is the 'training' they get. It is not the same everywhere ensb either and that this problem continues indicates either a weakness in what is taught or they don't bother themselves. and do what they like. On Saturday night on the news yet another example of the police there thinking they can do what they damn well like. An officer badly handling a man then noticed he was being filmed on a phone so stopped for a monet and hastened to the camera to block it just as as happened before.
This police action has been so much part of the society and most just didn't take much notice or bother themselves very much. Race does come into it and white people even if they do not realise it (or some anyway) have been used to being special left this police deficit alone as by and large it didn't trouble them personally being in a privileged position. So thins long term situation became a part of police thinking and actions knowing that as most folk beaten or killed were black meant that was that. After all the vast majority of the jailed in that 2.4 million are black. The vast majority of poor areas tend to be, well black so it is all part of the routine.
When people are in privileged positions such as white folk many have just accepted the stance without thinking of it in reality whilst the police violence has been a routine as the sun rising. Now many white people with the modern value of mobile phones are if using their grey cells correctly have realised how bad things are. Now there is government talk about allocating money for cameras to be worn on policemen if forces "want it." Something is overdue because it has been tolerated not for a few years but goes right back to early days. It is sad and with increasingly militarising the problem gets worse and been self created so it is up to you to do something about the mess you have not me. You folk live with it.
The welfare and penal systems have bred career criminals and gang structure. Escalation of police deaths in the 90's led to progressively more forceful measures being allowed. (I remember it was a pretty big deal when a percentage of State Troopers were issued assault rifles here.) Following 9/11 the police were encouraged to militarize pending terrorist attacks. And that's where we are...
Now we are getting to actual hypotheses. What were wrong with the welfare and penal systems? Too little welfare, too much, wrong type? Too much punishment, too little, too slow, wrong type?
What were wrong with the welfare and penal systems?
American culture, that's what went wrong.
Welfare seen from an egoistic perspective that rejects solidarity as an evil thing and a penal system that has pleasure in killing, hurting and humiliating people.
What were people expecting from such a "culture"...
Well I think I was getting near an important and deep factor jax.
Racism is not always in the face and many generations there have grown up naturally on the white side thinking they wre fine. Some experts have even found that there were black people who grew up thinking whites were natural leaders and influencers. So for many in the white side they have been part of a long generational thing that can be stretched right back to it's starting at the revolution. All those fine, comfortable white leaders laying down a basic law that only whites could be citizens and rights. Indians and black people. Nothing and it took off gradually from there. So many otherwise quite decent whites became part of a system and without much direct thought just went along with it. This laid down a basis that was eventually now in modern times to haunt the country.
As time went on the "lesser" people become resident in an apartheid system and their areas simply declined and little help or encouragement give. There are many still living today who will have seen the terrible incidents into the 1960's and 70's. Separated schools, buses, seats and much else. Not all police but too many became the uniformed from of the racism and the long detriment towards negoes became part of their culture too. Even during word War 2 the military having to seperate white and blacks in uniform whilst fighting Nazi racists in Germany?? For so long the white race got by and the black man had little opportunity to do anything in a country where the Constitution was treated like a Bible. In the prsent Baltimore matter Obama made great emphasise on the thugs and criminals but when people had previously protested innocently that was not so in the face was it?
What perhaps is needed is for people of a pale complexion is to realise that this has been so much part of life since the early days and should also ask themselves why jails are full of some many black faces, why their neighbourhoods are in the front line of poverty, unemployment and crime. The principled might find this a difficult one but it too long overdue. Instead these things I mention have not been a priority and they should have been a long dam time ago. As for the police service there is a deep flaw and the training is not as wide or proper training. Time after time no first aid after dealing with someone in their own way and that doesn't happen in other countries. Too inclined to shoot unarmed and anyway they are black so the bottom of the pile. The other night I watched a policeman who had wrestled a man to the ground to handcuff him then simply kick him until he faced round to face the officer. It is too quick an option to baton someone into submission, shoot him or strangle him to death or even break a spine.
The welfare and penal systems have bred career criminals and gang structure. Escalation of police deaths in the 90's led to progressively more forceful measures being allowed. (I remember it was a pretty big deal when a percentage of State Troopers were issued assault rifles here.) Following 9/11 the police were encouraged to militarize pending terrorist attacks. And that's where we are...
Now we are getting to actual hypotheses. What were wrong with the welfare and penal systems? Too little welfare, too much, wrong type? Too much punishment, too little, too slow, wrong type?
Dependency is an attitude that can be cultivated. It's a twisted little loop that raises children in hostile situations.
As long as the mother is on welfare the Government will provide for the children (food stamps and child support). However, they go after the father for the child support. Anytime he gets a job his check is split and if they can't pay they go to jail. It can be seen as advantageous not to get a real job on the books thus pushing them to the point it's jail time anyway, so meh.
Due to poor educational incentive they are left few choices in their minds. A system of people using people without a good decision in sight. Now you've got a "brotherhood" of guys shafted by "the system", trifling women, probably drug addicted and pissed off railroaded into a system with seemingly no way out. Even though there are ways out the ingrained feelings and mistrust can keep people from taking them. Rehabilitation for behavior, drugs and economic concerns should be standard practice but exist in a poorly underdeveloped underused state. Aka Psychology issues, or in that case criminal psychology which has a direct affect on police psychology. Now add in underfunded police departments across the nation with no effective support for the very real psychological concerns of their officers on the job.
Well I think I was getting near an important and deep factor jax.
Not likely.
Racism is a superficial issue. To try and simplify it to that is just being slow.
You folk live with it.
You folk die with it…
Race is superficial, but racism can be pretty structural in maintaining dysfunctionality, as can other markers like religion, language, or caste. An example could be Roma (gypsies) that do fairly well in North America, but are a despised underclass in most countries in Europe, including by new immigrants. Jews seems to have been living more trouble-free in East Asia, where nobody cared about who killed Jesus.
Racism matters, but maybe not for this topic. The victims seem disproportionately poor, young(ish), male, and black. But are they more vulnerable than the poor, youngish, male, and white/non-black? Is there any difference between black and non-black police officers (the former presumably more liable to look at black victims as people rather than target practice)?
You mentioned three factors, welfare, penal system, and violence against (danger to) police officers. There are probably posited dozens of others, more or less well founded. Rampant gun culture (there should be a thread about that), poverty, inequality, urbanity, racial inferiority, police education, community education, social isolation, victims were asking for it, police is inclined to answer with it, too little community policing, too much community policing, drugs, gay marriage, high crime rate, low crime rate, too much God, too little God, there is no such phenomena, it is made up by the media/troublemakers, the US has a large population (third after China and India).
The last ones are probably a good start if we want to make sure it is a real phenomena we're discussing. Are there more people killed by police per capita (population, police, criminals) than in other countries. Are there more today than earlier? Crime has fallen nation-wide, it would be reasonable that killed-by-cop should be as well.
To your three, there are countries with significantly more extensive welfare systems (here in Sweden would be one), there are also countries with no significant welfare systems. Likewise there is a great range in penal systems and in the prevalence of violence against police officers. A system from one place cannot straightforwardly be transplanted into another place, but there is a worldful of experience, as far back as records go.
Naturally I had only scratched the surface. (:troll:)
The last ones are probably a good start if we want to make sure it is a real phenomena we're discussing. Are there more people killed by police per capita (population, police, criminals) than in other countries. Are there more today than earlier? Crime has fallen nation-wide, it would be reasonable that killed-by-cop should be as well.
We may need a map...
Perhaps it would also help to outline some of the actual stresses on police.
Police stress arises from several features of police work. Alterations in body rhythms from monthly shift rotation, for example, reduce productivity. The change from a day to a swing, or graveyard, shift not only requires biological adjustment but also complicates officers’ personal lives. Role conflicts between the job—serving the public, enforcing the law, and upholding ethical standards—and personal responsibilities as spouse, parent, and friend act as stressors. Other stressors in police work include:
• Threats to officers’ health and safety (see Figure 8.4).
• Boredom, alternating with the need for sudden alertness and mobilized energy.
• Responsibility for protecting the lives of others.
• Continual exposure to people in pain or distress.
• The need to control emotions even when provoked.
• The presence of a gun, even during off-duty hours.
• The fragmented nature of police work, with only rare opportunities to follow cases to conclusion or even to obtain feedback or follow-up information.47
Source. (https://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/police_stress.htm)
Racism? Hummmm...racial mistaking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVYASvT_UPM#action=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVYASvT_UPM#action=share)
Race is not superficial and the sheer statistics can pass that odd thought. Equally we know that police are under pressure but one has to ponder as tyo how extensive the training actually is and it is an unfortunate part of the system that guns are so prominent in a society. This creates a gun and racial trait and as I pointed out many routinely decent whites have grown up in a situation that has existed from the early days so does not tend to be in a sense really noticed or appreciated. And anyway stresses on police are not an overall answer at all as it has went on from the starting days until now as black people have always been second fiddle. Other countries can have police who are wider trained to deal with all sorts of situations without having to strangle, shoot repeatedly, kick to death or break spines, etc. Imagine having a country where police don't carry guns - could one imagine that?!
Unfortunately even considering decent and dedicated officers the country does have a very deep seated problem and is not some recent trend at all. A nation awash with guns and a police service continually becoming like an army is no help at all but sadly the love of weaponry has created a problem all by itself.
And the farce about what passes for a police service in the ex-colonies continues. On Saturday a news report on an incident in Cleveland two years ago when police chased 2 men in a car - black of course. Some 13 policemen all fired their guns at the 2 men and one got on the bonnet and fired his gun through the windscreen not once but repeatedly. He got off with it of course it is America. So 13 cops firing guns at 2 unarmed men and one going ballistic and all of that is A1. It should be only folk in a loony bin who would regard that one as okay.
Other countries can have police who are wider trained to deal with all sorts of situations without having to strangle, shoot repeatedly, kick to death or break spines, etc. Imagine having a country where police don't carry guns - could one imagine that?!
Like the coppers who refused to investigate and prosecute rape and forced prostitution allegations for a dozen years, for fear of "upsetting" your Pakis?
The police here are sworn to "serve and protect". In your country, they've been coerced to serve and protect politically correctly determined "minorities" — and screw everyone else. (To protect themselves, of course, from their masters!)
The Lords (and Commons) forbid, a
minority group's members be held to account for their actual crimes! That could be considered an indication of racial bias! (The worst crime now imaginable!)
If you were numerate, I'd argue with you. But since you are also illiterate I'll let it go: You've managed to catch up quite quickly with our level of racial violence, and you didn't even have to try! :)
You continue to give yor own country a bad name byt unbelievingly sidestepping the police issue. That rubbish about 'serve and protect' is just a publicity gimmick. How can you justify a policeman standing on a bonnet of a car pumping round after round of bullets into the motor? The damn car was chased on the possibly genuine mistake that a backfire was mistaken for gunfire so it took dozens of policemen in a convoy and they fired 137 rounds at the couple who did not fire back because they were unarmed. That young cop who was on the car pumping like mad is typical.
Our situation is competently different. Your country started with guns but instead of getting maturity hung onto them like children. Your police are not as trained as you claim nor are they as long as ours. Ours are also trained to deal with those with obvious mental problems. You bodyswerve this Cleveland incident because there is no principled answer available from you lot. Cleveland has already had trouble with the Federal Government at them previously for un-needed violence. Indeed violence is a weekly thing over there and getting unarmed people shot regularity is the norm. Your cops don't want to run after someone just shoot them several times. Keep it up as you are making a fool of the sensible ex-colonist corner.
So, what's your explanation for what happened in Rotherham (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28939089)? Well, Howie: What of your original question: "Is there a police psychology problem?"
Oh for goodness sake. Thinking Americans will be embarrassed by you. You are trying to compare Rotherham with police right across your country shooting unarmed people as a right and get away with it? Try and face the truth instead of falling back on a juvenile clown mindset. Let me remind again as you are slow in getting past "duh."
From east to west in your country it is a regular thing for police to be too ready to gun down rather than chase or apphrehend like in other countries. You are so affixed with a badge and uniform folk of your limited grey cells understand nothing. In the Cleveland case it is in that one case as shocking indictment. Over 130 shots fired at the car, dozens of police joining the chase in cumfy cars. That charged cop standing on the bonnet firing shots in double figures. From New York to Los Angeles police impropriety is legend and being gong on for over a century at least. Add to this the constant militarisation of the polce and it makes you not only a damn laughing stock but a more dangerous image. The reason why things are more prominent now is due to things ike the mobile phone where events are filmed by others watching. And even in that police have tried to stop watchers doing that.
All this gives a picture to the outside world that you police can be as gung-ho as they feel inclined to. Hardly any bad cop gets into jail for violence and like Cleveland the law acts like an ass. Why the hell does a judge make excuses for a policeman jumping on a car and continually blasting repeatedly at the unarmed man and women/ Yeah you will hide behind the excuses. Instead of you facing thr truth you try to body-swerve but we do not have a police service half trained nor the constant and regular violence you have nor have soldiers having to be on streets. Try asking yourself why the police matter is not a distant one but continually. Ask why the police get military vehicles and equipment so easily/ Your police does have a mental issue and obviously not as well trained as you would like to boast instead with the supremacy of the gun and uniform they think they can do what they like and they can. Oh and let us remember that in supreme numbers of victims are normally black. "Serve and protect." A farcical inscription on cars as what they do is serve themselves and stuff everyone else.
These things would be normal in a dictatorship but as regular as the clock in the place that claims principles. You have a big, big, problem but either incapable of facing it optoo self-centred.
As usual, you don't care about the topic — so long as it provides a soapbox from which to deliver your rants against the United States…
Ah, well. As you've said, it provides a little variety to your days.
How can you be so infantile? Oh you like trying to be funny but fall back on the old hoary one about digging at the USA. It is so damn easy the way you act and you simple cannot answer the points about the police. It has been going on for ever over there and it is only nowadays it is getting more predominance and for very good reasons.
If your police cannot run after an unarmed man without gunning him with several bullets they are not trained right. The same applies to 30 odd officers shooting over 130 bullets at 2 unarmed in a car then that idiot on the bonnet pumping in dozens. Every so often we see because of modern tv, mobile phones, etc, police beating people up sometimes more than one carrying out the battering, choking or whatever. Recently a documentary gave an insight into some mental institutions where the unifromed guards do not take on board the occupants have mental problems and beat them up and worse. It is obliviously a deep problem you have with cops. Hey does anyone over there remember foot patrols instead of convoys of cars?
If you had simply accepted that evidence is showing there is a big problem that would at least be respected but you are so damn red neck and huffy about terrible things that totally contradict what is supposed to be. I dare say folk of your grey cells are champing at the bit that mobile pines tell the truth about your police service and that the truth is right across the country is even more in the face. Face the truth.
So far this year, our American police have managed to kill 385 or 2.6 per day in 2015.
I wonder what the numbers are for Western European countries like the UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain, Italy?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fatal-police-shootings-in-2015-approaching-400-nationwide/2015/05/30/d322256a-058e-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html
Here's one answer:
England and Wales - 55 fatal police shootings in 24 years.
USA - 59 fatal police shootings in the first 24 days of 2015.
More answers here:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries
From behind Jochie's link:
Behind the numbers: Zambrano-Montes was killed in February by officers responding to reports that he was throwing rocks at cars. The incident was caught on video, with 17 shots fired; according to police, “five or six” struck Zambrano-Montes.
In Finland, according to chief inspector Jukka Salmine, police fired just six bullets in all of 2013.
To be fair, Finland had a fatal police shooting this year: http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2015/01/15/13335/Suspected-Oulu-axe-killer-dies-in-police-operation
Finnish sources are more detailed than this English-speaking one. The reported details say that a single policeman fired "at least two shots" at the axeman. Before shooting, the same policeman first received a blow with the axe to the head. The policeman was wearing a helmet and he was a member of a special squad of 15 who were all on the spot with the task to hunt down the axeman who had already killed two people.
This is how this axeman in Finland died.
Unfortunately ersi you are not right exercising that as a fair balance. Even the US President has admitted publicly there is a big US police problem shooting in bad situations. It contradicts all the land of freedom guff. The rest of the world does not have the same headache as over the pond and Obama had to admit it. That this has been a long history was not known to many but the rise of mobile phones with cameras tells the truth. Regular shootings when guns did not have to be used on unarmed people and at the same time loads of bullets?? Shameful.
There are about 900,000 policemen in the U.S. If each one shoots two people per year...
I read at the news that one of the two men that escaped from jail in a very imaginative and well humored escape, leaving behind a smiley - have a nice day, was killed by the police near the Canadian border.
Was there such a necessity?
The American "cultural" tradition of chasing people as animals, shoot them to death and show the hunting trophy for the photograph really has no place any longer.
That is not done and never was for justice or law.
The American "cultural" tradition of chasing people as animals, shoot them to death and show the hunting trophy for the photograph really has no place any longer
Utterly silly.
These convicts aren't/weren't....
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loughboroughjunction.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2FNews_BigLunch4.jpg&hash=4b91ce3b05e768ec685c448fed391f2c" rel="cached" data-hash="4b91ce3b05e768ec685c448fed391f2c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.loughboroughjunction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/News_BigLunch4.jpg)
I'm no Smileyfaze, but going after people like these isn't for the light of heart.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/us/new-york-prison-break/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/08/us/new-york-prison-break/)
Nearly 900,000 police? Emphasises the problem!
An armed and violent police force is evidently a democratic requirement.
[video]https://youtu.be/7EX3km583Dw[/video]
(Old video, the Internet moves in mysterious ways)
Nearly 900,000 police? Emphasises the problem!
In a population of 320,000,000. 17,496 in Scotland in a population of 5,327,700. There's a significant difference, but what does it mean?
Now, please explain what the emphasis is. I'll bet you can't.
The Vatican City has 15,550 policemen per 100,000 people. Obviously, the Vatican is overburdened by violent crime! Bodies everywhere.
=====================
Just in case you missed it, please explain what the emphasis is. I'll bet you can't.
The Vatican City has 15,550 policemen per 100,000 people. Obviously, the Vatican is overburdened by violent crime! Bodies everywhere.
Um, what? You can walk around it in less than a half hour and I thought the population was no more than about 900. Given certain obvious facts I can well imagine there are an awful lot of police officers employed, but certainly nothing like 15,000. :P
Given certain obvious facts I can well imagine there are an awful lot of police officers employed, but certainly nothing like 15,000.
You're right, but the number is 15,000 per 100,000 people. You do the math because anything more than 1+1=3 is too much for me.
Wikipedia says the present count of Vatican police is 130. I would have thought a little more given Jimbro's figures, I came out with 139--- given a population of 900 and assuming the percentage of police to population remained the same.
I'm not sure they do much beyond honorary stuff and making sure visitors stay off the grass-- oh, yes, being the Pope's bodyguard too. Trying to quell Chicago-style shoot-outs? Nope.
Murder and bank heists aren't overly common in Vatican City.
VATICAN CITY HAS THE HIGHEST PER CAPITA CRIME RATE IN THE WORLD
BY STAFF WRITER
VATICAN CITY (INTELLIHUB) — Many people were shocked last week, when it was discovered that about a dozen condoms filled with liquid cocaine was sent to the Vatican. The cocaine shipment weighed in at about 12 ounces and was worth tens of thousands of dollars.
While this is an interesting case, what many people don’t know is that the Vatican actually has the highest crime rate in the world. This doesn’t necessarily mean that more crimes are committed at the Vatican than anywhere else, but it does mean that there is an incredible amount of crime considering the population of the area.
Crime in the Vatican City consists largely of purse snatching, pickpocketing and shoplifting, by outsiders. The tourist foot-traffic in St. Peter’s Square is one of the main locations for pickpockets in Vatican City, according to Wikipedia.
Well I'm not visiting the Vatican City. As an Orangeman I would have nothing to come home with. :yikes:
I'd bet you'd still have your sneer… :)
Well I'm not visiting the Vatican City. As an Orangeman I would have nothing to come home with.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fv2Mkppa5Lrspa%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=29d0eb80faf4d91ff3650e87c6d0ef06" rel="cached" data-hash="29d0eb80faf4d91ff3650e87c6d0ef06" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media.giphy.com/media/v2Mkppa5Lrspa/giphy.gif)
Yes jimbro something in that. We travelled the world and proved to be great administrators, etc but the lot who are running the country today are a mindless bunch of tartan Brigadoons
I hate it when you agree with me!
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61MEKyAQSpg[/video]
Isn't life a challenge and making you sigh will be a wonderment to muse on.
In Wilmington the police shot a man whom they had chased. Seems he had tried to get cough syrup with a fals prescription. When they got to the man he was ordered to put his hands up which he did not do but instead he pointed a finger at the police maybe pretending he was imitating firing but they pumped 9 bullets at him.
The man was in a wheel chair.Of the rapidly approaching 900 killed this year 12 officers have been arrested. Roll on Police State staus
Now a further 2 policemen arrested for what they did in a car chase. They pumped a fusillade of bullets in a car chase and when the vehicle stopped the 6-year old have multiple bullets in him which killed the child.The chased car had no gun. Police mentality continues.
It is worse as it seems the man in the car had his hands up. Police State marches on.
Meanwhile, in Edinburgh, knife attacks continue.
A LEADING solicitor has told a court that he was the victim of a daylight robbery bid in Edinburgh city centre.
Civil law expert Charles McGregor told a jury yesterday police took a long time to respond to the alleged incident, given that it happened around the corner from a police station.
Mr McGregor, 48, said a man barged into him and demanded he hand over his wallet outside his office at lunchtime.
To Mr McGregor’s horror, his assailant then pulled out a knife and slashed him across the cheek, sending his glasses flying, he said.
Read more: http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/knife-attack-victim-slams-slow-police-response-1-3908568#ixzz3rDe6KqqF
Flying glasses is an absolute outrage.
You are really damaging your intellect with that stuff jimbro. It is the wide police problems you have that are away ahead of everywhere. No comparison at all and I am surprised that someone of your intellect comes away with something a limited grey cell would produce (even allowing for the subtle Edinburgh thing!).
It is your corner where so many loose brained police go about too quick to shoot and often unarmed people time after time. Now with military vehicles, armoured cars, gear, etc. No comparison whatsover. Does not bode well for the future and does the country's image no good whatsover and self-created. The flawed police issue is a long and deep one which ion the past could be partly kept from many but the modern mobile phone only now proves what has been going on for decades. I wouldn't trust many of them with a pea shooter.
Will you explain or excuse what happened in ROTHERHAM, England (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/world/europe/reckoning-starts-in-britain-on-abuse-of-girls.html?_r=0), RJ?
Of course, you'll say that was England! But you Scots are very tight-lipped… (And you voted to remain a united country; you must share a common ethic. No?)
There's a psychology problem: Liberals prefer to champion those who hurt people, either for fun or for profit. (I admit, I don't quite understand why…) And they find any excuse to denigrate "conservatives" who'd hold such responsible (…can we still use that word?).
Are you drunk or just plain daft Oakdale??
How that is equable to a police that you have in so many places that act like the servants of a Police State? Your police are armed, dangerous, beaters of people and so many killing incidents - including of unarmed people. That has been going on for donkey years and is only more known now due (as I said) to mobile phones. You have tried this silliness before and obviously making it obvious you cannot explain the widespread misuse of power by so much of your police force. Try answering that and why such a land of the free and home of the brave the police need to be like soldiers and have army vehicles. You have well proved the police issue you have by your inability to face the truth. In a country that is gun mad the police are well part of that disastrous stance. What a damning stance for a modern country and you try and do a dance with such a national and very deep problem for decades.
And the latest police killing (I think it is as they happen so often) is the man (wadda ye know, black) who was gunned down. Seems in an incident during an arrest he was intervening with ambulance men picking someone up and it is being said he was gunned??
And the latest police killing (I think it is as they happen so often) is the man (wadda ye know, black) who was gunned down. Seems in an incident during an arrest he was intervening with ambulance men picking someone up and it is being said he was gunned??
Blacks are not the only people that get gunned down here. There have been plenty of white people that share the same fate. The media only shares stories that have the most controversy behind them. Media is mostly negative. Annnnnd....."ambulance men" are actually referred to as paramedics/EMTs. You're welcome. ;)
Well you call the crews what you want I am British so ambulance men! And yes whites are shot down to but you are neatly trying a fast one. The vast majority f shootings Do involve blacks so a neat try in what you allege. With a country rapidly looking like a Police State anything abounds. The other night I was watching an enjoable programme about my interest - passenger trains. It is a regular prog and at London Euston it covered one of the uniformed staff who was a supervisor (oooh, you have them too). Now there was an incident with some football supporters heading home to Manchester and a couple were arguing with the police. The woman supervisor was an American as it happens and she turned to the camera and said that she was taken aback. She added that in her country the police would not stand anyone disagreeing with them. Made me smile.
The vast majority of shootings Do involve blacks so a neat try in what you allege.
Uh, no; they don't. Just the vast majority of incidents your (and our) media choose to report do
“Adjusted for the homicide rate, whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks die at the hands of police,” he [Mr. Moskos] said. “Adjusted for the racial disparity at which police are feloniously killed, whites are 1.3 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police. Mr. Moskos listed two possible reasons for the racial disparity. The first is that police assigned to largely black neighborhoods face “more political fallout when they shoot, and thus receive better training and are less inclined to shoot.”
The second is that police assigned to black communities with high crime rates are more accustomed to dangerous situations and thus are more likely to be able to resolve them without resort to lethal force.
Figures on police shootings by race are thin on the ground, but Mr. Moskos’s results have some support: The investigative journalism website ProPublica came up with a similar percentage in an Oct. 10 article, reporting that 44 percent of all those killed by police were white, using FBI data from 1980 to 2012. The fact-checking website PolitiFact concluded in August 2014 that police kill more whites than blacks after the claim was made by conservative commentator Michael Medved. PolitiFact cited data from the Centers for Disease Control on fatal injuries by “legal intervention” from 1999 to 2011. “Over the span of more than a decade, 2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. In that respect, Medved is correct,” said PolitiFact. But PolitiFact gave his assertion a “half true” rating because whites make up 63 percent of the population, while blacks make up just 12 percent. “Yes, more whites than blacks die as a result of an encounter with police, but whites also represent a much bigger chunk of the total population,” PolitiFact said in its Aug. 21 post. But PolitiFact did not take into account the percentage of those by race involved in violent crime or shootings of police, as Mr. Moskos did. Despite the recent flood of media coverage involving police shootings, Mr. Moskos advised his readers to “keep all this morbidity in perspective,” reminding them that very few people, white or black, will ever be shot or killed by police. “The odds that any given black man will shoot and kill a police officer in any given year is slim to none, about one in a million. The odds for any given white man? One in four million,” he said. “The odds that a black man will be shot and killed by a police officer is about 1 in 60,000. For a white man those odds are 1 in 200,000.”
[my emphasis]
(source (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all))
Are you suggesting that we need to institute an "affirmative action" program — for police shootings?! :) That'll work out well!
Proportions are the issue Police State defender. You try well to drift away from the gun toting of those in uniform and where in other places routine crimes would be mire inclined to try non violent things your excuse for a police is far too ready to pull a gun out and if it is not several shots then that is a police failing! Your police do think they are something and as they also have all sorts of military hardware, transport, etc does not exactly give a very good picture of the place at all. That American woman I mentioned on the rail staff in London hit the nail on the head because too many of your officers think they are the law not it's servants. Violence is built-in and too instant.
We have one going to trial, and dash-cam footage shows that the officer fired long after the "suspect" could have been any threat. The officer involved is now facing a murder rap, and is held without bond today.
16 shots-------- the officer had to have emptied his gun and possibly reloaded-- I can't be sure-- to fire that many times. Once or maybe twice would have stopped most offenders, so--- 16?? Worse, the officer did this within range of his own squad-car's dash-cam. Not only a murderer, but a brain-dead one at that.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-cop-allegedly-shot-teen-laquan-mcdonald-16/story?id=35391346 (http://abcnews.go.com/US/chicago-cop-allegedly-shot-teen-laquan-mcdonald-16/story?id=35391346)
Yes, caught that incident here too and the report said that the vid would be available soon as well as being very disturbing? Despicable and at the same time is so very sad in a long trail of police actions. Wish it were not so.
Does not your own country interest you, RJ?
Rampant crime, thuggery and police afraid to confront -let alone, police- "ethnic" minorities… (What's a few score young girls' terror, compared to the Politically Correct attitudes of your masters? :( ) That doesn't interest you! You'd rather cull a few incidents (and their outrageously biased media accounts) from a nation of more than 300 million — to apply your warped sense of justice at.
Surely, what you know of your own history should give you pause…
But, no, you'd rather vent your spleen at others! Well, sonny, your spleen is about exhausted; your wit has long since fled, if it ever was there. And your intelligent understanding of the world is pitiful…
Carry on, brave Scot! :) See your race crawl into the ash-pit of history.
Any one that goes for police, judge or any other such thing is a psychopath. Societies that relies on psychopaths are not healthy societies.
Specially when such individuals emerges from the lowest social classes.
You can't be serious, Bel… Or that ignorant. (Early on-set Alzheimer's? :( )
Dear, oh dear, Oakdale, you are so ridiculous.
Our police very often deal without issues your police have without gunning people down with 5, 6 or in this latest example, 16 bullets. That Chicagoan gunner gave his excuse that he felt under threat? Here where a special police unit has to go to a gun incident (not very regular I may inform) bullets are restricted and efforts to avoid having them. But over in your hell-hole there is in general too much of a gin-ho attitude in too many places and they stretch from one side of the country to the other. One doubts if there is a country in the world where the police think they can do what they damn well like and shoot like cowboys. it IS a nation-wide issue with you lot over there from coast to coast. It has been happening for scores of decades but the arrival of mobile phones has given very practical examples of the tradition. People shot in the back, beaten up in public, shooting at the least thing something we know essentially nothing about.
Assuming you are part intelligent to compare our traditions, police, etc like your gun easy lot is daft. Indeed you fall back on the old adage of trying to avoid the truth and aim somewhere else. With so many people gunned down by police and especially blacks, 2.3 million in jails and so on you should feel embarrassed at the picture you try to give the world at such a wonderful place. Too many of your city police forces contain the gung-ho, officers who see themselves as special and the law and so on. Indeed, arrogance is almost automatic with too many. They think a uniform makes you automatically Superman and many would never make the police here. Thank goodness ours remain not with guns unlike your cowboys.
This cop has an extensive rap sheet of complaints. Over the years he cost the city of Chicago 100's of thousands dollars in settlements yet he was never held accountable. Cops in Chicago are very rarely held accountable for misconduct, one could say, just about never. You're pretty safe when you as a Chicago cop abuse a civilian.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/25/chicago-cop-charged-in-deadly-shooting-has-a-history-of-misconduct-complaints/
The problem is the political leadership and the fawning love many Americans have for the police, their "protectors." As long as you have politicians excusing cops you allow these types of problems.
Now that the cop is finally charged, the mayor of Chicago said "We hold our police officers to a high standards ..." explaining how wonderful they are in charging him..
As the above article shows, the reality is there is really NO standard. The mayor's statement is self -serving bull shit. After a year they finally charge this cop, then mayor says how the police is held to a high standard with the political and law enforcement elite patting each other on their backs on the great a job they're doing.
Its sad, really sad and disgusting.
The Democrat party machine has always operated in this fashion… Specially in Chicago! (Something very similar happens in "socialist" states.) Mix corruption with power-politics, and you get lawlessness — and, maybe, order.
You can feel "disgusted," Jochie… But is that the best you can find, to react to? Is that really the most pressing problem? (Nothing in your country, for instance…) Bizarre cases occur.
You can feel "disgusted," Jochie… But is that the best you can find, to react to? Is that really the most pressing problem? (Nothing in your country, for instance…) Bizarre cases occur.
I can react to a lot of things. Like very stupid and venal politicians starting and getting into useless wars.
Police malfeasance is a serious issue. NY City alone pays about 80 million dollars because of police malfeasance. And the settled cases are only the tip of actual incidents. Most cases are never reported and when reported there is mostly no settlement.
Chicago paid over 1/2 billion over 10 years.
The cost is no problem for the cops. They personally don't pay. Its the taxpayers who pay.
With this Chicago shooting if there were no video, the story the police initially spread would as usual have been accepted. A justified shooting because MCDonald was "attacking" the cops with his weapon.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/25/why-did-authorities-say-laquan-mcdonald-lunged-at-chicago-police-officers/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_chicago-1015pm:homepage/story
Americans worry about ISIS? Maybe they should worry about those who really terrorize the public, the American police, who kill many, many more here than ISIS ever will.
You do actually have a strong corner there whilst the mind people like Oakdale who are in millions there just shut their minds off. It is amongst the worst places on Earth like dictatorships, etc that put people in uniform and then those in it think they are "it."
It is not as id such things are remote they are as regular as the young getting shot to death in the damn school system. I pointed out that the police psycho thing has went on for a century and more and some things have been hidden but that is much, much harder to do nowadays. The USA has more spy agencies than any other nation on Earth and much of that excessive expenditure is on the freedoms of Americans at home. The guff is all about the usual word - "security." City police forces have this inbuilt arrogance and I watched it on my two visits over there years ago. They think they are it and if you resort to disagreeing with any of them watch yourself. Oakdale has this approach that cannot face the attitude of too much of the police. Elsewhere one can find many examples of where unarmed police deal with some of the things that US cops routinely face but the difference comes in quick regarding reactions. Usually because one has had the damn cheek to think they have a right to have a different view from the officer on an incident. The baton comes out too quickly and so too does the gun.
What I said about that American woman who was a railway station (London Euston) supervisor kind of emphasises what I say. The time for shooting comes too quick and far too often too heavy. These incidents happen actually in a regular fashion but the Oakdale mindset closes off to any criticism and ignores the hard facts that American police do not get a very good reputation by the world who see the incidents consistently.
Let American police to behave as savages. Their problem, not ours.
Very true but the Yanks do not realise how the place looks! Anyway you are quite right and the problem is staying with them.
Your preening and strutting seem to be all you have left… So, yes, leave us to ourselves. :)
Well I wish you would leave yourselves to yourselves on the world sgate dear boy when one considers the way you run your country.
I have already said that the standard levels for joining many city police forces in the US of A were deplorable then last night I got a surpise news report on tv. It was an interview with a retured captaon of the Philadelphia City Police. He was annoyed at the number of vicious police actions across the country and stated that the problem was the mentality and standards of those allowed to join. Indeed he said that thehey should be doing. He also made it plain that far too many due to their ignorant and bloody-minded self-importance were a disgrace.
You meanwhile cannot cope with the truth and come back with this limp stuff of leave it to yourselves. Well considering the number of arrogant, mentally retarded and killing instincts of so many of your police you are not doing very well sorting it are you? Too many of your cops think they are the law and "it" and have got away with it as a tradition. Pathetic that police elsewhere can deal with many routine incidents without battering a person to bits or shooting them repeatedly even when the person concerned is not armed.
Years ago on one of my two haunts to the ex-colonies and got into a chat with a city policeman in NYC he saidto me was it kind of true at the time that our cops dealt with issues with a truncheon and a notebook and I laughed and said "yes." He looked at me for a minute with a look of almost disbelief and didn't know what to say. Kind of says it all dear Police State acceptor!
Pathetic that police elsewhere can deal with many routine incidents without battering a person to bits or shooting them repeatedly even when the person concerned is not armed.
And little girls were raped, indeed sold into slavery — in Great Britain! Yeah: Quit you like
men pussies!
Of course, you don't care,
RJ. You have no daughters — and care for no one else's. You're a mighty poor specimen.
But you want to blame the U.S. for — what? :) Is there anything in your country that we've had any
fingers in…? Nah! You've done yourselves in…
Oops-y!
—————————————————————
Years ago on one of my two haunts to the ex-colonies and got into a chat with a city policeman in NYC he saidto me was it kind of true at the time that our cops dealt with issues with a truncheon and a notebook and I laughed and said "yes." He looked at me for a minute with a look of almost disbelief and didn't know what to say. Kind of says it all dear Police State acceptor (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=472.431;msg=49038)
(
Howie tried to post a link… :) )
Your "cops" allowed young girls to be raped, repeatedly; abused in horrible ways… For what?
Your "political" correctness.
You don't like people dying? Nonsense! You don't care the least about such; but you've never been involved… Take your sorry ass away from anything that matters!
You have no
balls!
So, yes, leave us to ourselves.
Only if you promiss to be some kind of lemmings jumping from the cliffs...
Anyway you are English fault not anyone else. I think they are open to do whatever you demand from them. It must be some kind of freudian relationship between colonizer and colonised.
You are making yourself look silly Oakdale and a child mentality. Nowhere compares to America to wayward so-called city policemen but you don't have the honesty to admit such and instead try to body-swerve the widespread idiots and low life knuckle-draggers that pas for policemen. The figures speak for themselves. Too many of your so-called defenders of the people namely what passes for police are as I pointed out, low life, ignorant, full of their own importance and think they are it and above anyone else. There is probably no country that competes with yours for arrogant and dangerous people in a uniform and call them police. Singling out a town when in your country the police problem is EVERYWHERE is so damn stupid. You have had over two centuries to grow up and still not there yet.
You have had over two centuries to grow up and still not there yet.
Oakdale Earp is waiting for you outside of the saloon Jesse James Howie...
He had better run away because he is as physically out of shape as mentally! Based on the obvious fact that he cannot answer very direct points so being a nutjob supporter even if fired the bullets would be everywhere but the target. I meantime, would not draw mine but let him run away.
Marshall Wyatt Earp Howie
You'll like this,
RJ:
As the historian Jill Lepore once summarized it, in reviewing Pieter Spierenburg’s A History of Murder: By the time European states became democracies, the populace had accepted the authority of the state. But the American Revolution happened before Americans had got used to the idea of a state monopoly on force. Americans therefore preserved for themselves not only the right to bear arms — rather than yielding that right to a strong central government — but also medieval manners: impulsiveness, crudeness, and fidelity to a culture of honor. We’re backward, in other words, because we became free before we learned how to control ourselves.
(source (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427967/san-bernardino-shooting-guns-homicide-statistics))
— I'd note, that we became free — before we were consigned to control, by others.
Mark, if you will, that weird reference to "a culture of
honor…"You'd dispense with Honor entirely…?
Just as a qualm, I'd ask:
how much of virtue need we reject, to be "modern"?
I'd note, that we became free
Have you? really? how interesting.
Free from what? Indians? Buffalos?
Free from Europeans who think they can tell us how to live. That'll do for starters.
Daft answer from a man with grey cells. Tell you how to live? You would just ignore it as you totally ignore you have one of the worst countries in the world for silence and your police are very much part of that. Something you choose to ignore and pet the lip. If as a country you spent less time proclaiming to the world how brilliant you are thenj a better situation would be available. As I earlier pointed out, police violence is a very long standing thing over there and although blacks got the most it was not restricted to them. For much of the last hundred years or so much of it would be neatly overlooked but the rise of mobile phones has well balanced that subterfuge out. You also neatly avoided the television interview I mentioned with a retired Philly police captain. He was very competent and directly said that there were far too many in police forces who should never be in them. Arrogance and thinking they are special is a trait in too many policemen. Trouble is that far too many people in America have just put up with it and for decades too many police thought they were "it" and their attitude to the people they were meant to be protecting was something else. Chicago is another long standing example of inappropriate and dodgy stuff.
It almost seems like a tradition with too many over the pond that the hypocrisy is sidelined tthe we-are-the-greatest. Added bother is that too many policemen think that of themselves and would jot get that job in more educated police forces elsewhere. That retired captain was very honest.
Free from Europeans who think they can tell us how to live. That'll do for starters.
You are Europeans. *grins*
Free from Europeans who think they can tell us how to live. That'll do for starters.
You are Europeans. *grins*
Only partially. I seem to have Chippewa on my mother's side of the family.
Free from Europeans who think they can tell us how to live.
Do they? :left:
Does Merkel (http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-930451-galleryV9-gnqe-930451.jpg)?
You are Europeans. *grins*
Does Obama look like an European? :left:
You are Europeans.
well,
most americans thinks they are native people .
not europeans .
Have you? really? how interesting.
Free from what? Indians? Buffalos?
Free from the pestilence of Monarchy, rule by genetically deficient in-breeders…
While it's true that dispensing with this pox is no guarantee of better rule, it does offer the possibility of a better result — if only by chance! :)
Some wish only to serve,
Bel; they need Masters! Others would be their
own masters… Is that why you dislike Americans so much? They think they're their own masters? :) Of course, you know better: What kind of "whipped" you are, I'm not sure; but your
macho is a façade! :(
A policeman could be under stress? Uh? With so many police shooting incidents that were not needed it only goes to illustrate my point that many city officers over there are mental midgets and should never been in the uniform. They think they are it and mentally swagger at their self-importance. With so many police dodgy incidents it only falls into the wide mental stuff over there.
Only partially. I seem to have Chippewa on my mother's side of the family.
I'm almost half German if you go by blood. :)
Does Obama look like an European? :left:
Yes. And even if he didn't, it's the linguistic and sociocultural aspects that count.
Yes.
No. As for the linguistic and sociocultural aspects is even worst.
Europe doesn't need three hundred millions American africans and others, we've already the syrians.
Let them turn "republicans " or whatever.
Some wish only to serve, Bel; they need Masters! Others would be their own masters… Is that why you dislike Americans so much? They think they're their own masters? :)
Three times masters on a row...
The last time I've heard an American mentioning masters...
I'm the Captain of my soul
The master of my fate....You've executed him immediately.
Don't speak about masters.
Meanwhile maybe they should appoint head shrinkers to city police forces across the country. Finding heads with common sense maybe sensible would get a medal and with the number to be issued would not cost very much......
A troubling video of police shooting a civilian in the back who was walking away. After bring shot hand having fallen on the ground crawling away the police still continue shooting.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sheriff-s-deputies-fatally-shoot-man-in-lynwood-caught-on-videotape-20151212-story.html
Jochie this is a routine play across the whole country over there. A lot of these so-called trained "police" would not be one in civilised countries. They think they are it and are the law. Wonderfully secure country with a wonderful city police? Nah. Too many never grew up from Hollywood and child watching films or the cowboys. And before some bright spark comes on to say there are decent police of course there are. Even in historical dictatorships there were decent people but the widespread and standard police action will no doubt be an effort to lower the cost of adding people to the 2.3 million in jails in the world's so-called greatest country!
When a senior ex-police officer in a big city tells us that there is a fundamental problem in the service that speaks volumes but is ignored.
rj,
Its not just watching bang ups like cowboys and Indians. Its a whole culture raised on guns, playing violent video games. Its a culture that has become more crude, that is degenerating. Its one reason why by far we have the most LEO's per capita in the world. We have myriad police forces, Federal, state, local and special forces such as the Port Authority Police in NY/NJ and Bear Mountain Parkway police.
The NY Times just came out with a story of the latest murder by correction officers in NY. No one gave a damn because prison brutality is integral to American prison system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/14/nyregion/clinton-correctional-facility-inmate-brutality.html
Kids used to be raised with social play - stickball, handball. Now the play is exercising finger and eyes on video games where social interaction is on how many Facebook friends you have.
Sadly what you say is so very true and that it effects such a large proportion of the population regarding guns, police violence, violent prisons (as well as such high inmate numbers) and very negative vies from the rest of the world. Makes me glad our police are not armed.
Police counts for nothing. What counts is the way regimens uses the police.
The world can watch everyday in video how American regimen uses the police.
The way police acts it's entire responsability of the regimen.
If not, there's no State.
Something that would not surprise me at all...
Well the way too many American police act is a deep concern in the fabric of the country and when you get as I reminded a retired senior officer from a big city detracting the competence, intelligence and sense they have a big problem! Why some places put things on police cars like 'serve and protect' is almost laughable if wasn't so serious. Over there those in that uniform think they are "it" and traditionally have got away with it. Kind of slow drift into a form of Police State. :rolleyes:
I noted on a television news item involving the mental midget, oops meant a policeman that he still denies murder after shooting someone with 16 bullets. It certainly eases things in the mental hospitals that so many can get jobs as policemen. When I see a logo on a car saying "serve and protect", I give a long groan.
Kind of slow drift into a form of Police State. :rolleyes:
Since you mentioned that -
Law enforcement through civil forfeitures took more stuff from people than burglars did last year. Civil forfeiture lets police seize and keep cash and property from people who are never convicted or not even charged with wrongdoing.
Imagine that. The police taking more money from the American public than burglars and not even having to justify it by charging the individual with a crime and or a judicial trial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/10/report-in-lean-times-police-start-taking-a-lot-more-stuff-from-people/
The way police acts it's entire responsability of the regimen.
If not, there's no State.
Something that would not surprise me at all...
Who needs the 'State' in a real democracy. Free markets and the survival of the fittest can take care of everything. :)
Imagine that. The police taking more money from the American public than burglars and not even having to justify it by charging the individual with a crime and or a judicial trial.
You have to see it as a positive development.
After all it's an ingenious way to make out of the police a lucrative biz.
Next step would be privatization. Imagine the bull market because of police departament shares traded at the NYSE. ;)
None of this sidestepping removes the hard and sad fact that so much of the police behaviour has been a long time built-in attitude. And yes, yes, of course there are decent police but the hard truth is that right across the country time after time the aggrandisement of too many are ridiculous. As I also pointed out the standards of many city police forces are over the top and that senior retired one who said that many should not have been enrolled emphasises that inbuilt problem. Far too many think that they can get away with anything because that is what has happened for a century and more - so thanks for mobile phone cameras. Getting carried away with a uniform is rather juvenile and says too much about intelligence and common sense. They think they are "it."
Getting carried away with a uniform is rather juvenile and says too much about intelligence and common sense. They think they are "it."
Says the man who likes to wear a sash… :) (Are you hoping to qualify for the Miss America contest? Even now that Trump doesn't control it, your chances are slim, boy-o!)
You focus your attention upon the U.S. and ignore local (and your nation's) deficiencies — and sanctioned (…until
exposed caught…) malfeasance and politically-correct abetting: What kind of fool are you?
One whose perversity knows few bounds, only borders: The mote in our eye is more important to you than the beam in yours…
While I'll grant that ours is actually more than a mote…your beam is from long ago firmly lodged, and your view would best be directed to the nearest mirror,
RJ.
Scotland doesn't have any problems. It does have Salmond, but....
(https://windfarmaction.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/high270.jpg)
And then there is this, although it has nothing to do with police problems.
(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/1914279_738582792945688_564891135693574270_n.jpg?oh=1c1c67019e02877bc43243e8585061c1&oe=5703AE52)
Oakdale there are times I give a long sigh. You just simply ignore the stark very sad and disgusting turht and that is you DO have a police problem. You must rank well up the list of countries where the police think they are it. Every month there are head shaking police attitudes that stink to high heaven. Even in routine things that a place where regular police do not carry guns they can handle using the head or if need be a truncheon or spray. But in the ex-colonies? Nah that is too tame as they think they are it. The general record of your police over there even allowing for those that are normal and not subtly nutjobs in a uniform is mentally short. They would not get the job in other countries. It is unfortunately too inherent in the system. Shooting someone 16 times or chasing a car owner across a park for a motoring offence and because he doesn't stop gives the right for repeated shots in the back??
It is bad enough that there is a a built-in arrogance in so many police departments and the legal system is a joke too. Some 2.3 million in jails?? Many sentences are ridiculous and a raft of ways of executing (don't agree with the death penalty). Although i can respect the decent ex-colonists your country I am afraid looks something else to the world even if you sneer or ignore such.
You just simply ignore the stark very sad and disgusting truth [multiple typos corrected, free of charge…] and that is you DO have a police problem.
Every modern country has "a police problem,"
RJ. You just happen to ignore those nearer to you.
Your animosity towards the U.S. is — unexplained, by you. (You, sort-of, explained your animosity towards Israel…) I've asked you, and you've refused to explain yourself…
Police power is an awesome responsibility. In some places, it is simply shirked — for one reason or another. In most places, it is abused — more often than not.
You have a problem with guns… Sobeit! You also seem to think most men should be "aunties"… Do you really think that's the world you live in? :)
Scotland's crime rate (and victimized innocents) would argue otherwise. But, you spend your time and effort railing against the U.S.…? :) Well, that's the sort of fellow you are!
—————————————————————————————
and a raft of ways of executing (don't agree with the death penalty)
We specifically out-lawed "cruel and unusual" punishment, partly because of your ancestors' beheadings and "draw and quartering" quaint methods of keeping the peace.
Are you ever sober Oakdale or do you forget easily? There is no way any of our countries is anything like yours in violence, police rampages, beatings, killings, etc.
We here have nothing at all like your so-called defenders and protectors in uniform and fine you damn know it. What you do is show up your fellow countrymen when you raise some issue here which is not a nationwide thing or anything like the level in the USA. This is not a very intellectual way of dealing with anything when the level of violence, guns, gung ho police puts America away out in front over just about every other place in the world. Some 13,000 shooting a year, regular police the truth. You are away in front of the world in violence especially gun nutters and include police nutters in that and don't forget the 2.3 million in jails. Even Europe with a bigger population does not have the amount of police violence and gunning down you have and I have to over a long time had to repeat the damnable record your country has.
The way your cowboys in police uniform go about things has no-one comparable to you and you live in cloud cuckoo land yourself. You cannot really answer the charges about unarmed people getting shot every week and so many who are unarmed civilians.The longer our regular police do not need to carry arms the better because you're lot have itchy fingers but there again in generality they are less endowed over there in grey cells and emotional nutjobs. Do try and face the damn facts instead of scraping around on odd incidents because you DO have a police violence problem. Once more your nation is way out in front but in a negative way. Your usual stuff is to try and avoid what even a child could answer. Oh, maybe the 2 million plus in jail are there because there is a housing shortage? Grow up and face the truth.
RJ, you don't find it worth commenting upon — that your police (…certainly, closer to you than ours!) allowed, for 20 years, rapes of "native" English; because political-correctness wouldn't allow "brown" or "Paki" perps to be charged…for fear of being accused of "racism"?
Of course not!
You get your jollies from criticizing others. Your own failings, short-comings and faults — these you ignore. (Since you know you can do nothing about them, that's a wise choice: Being ineffectual is your lot; and venting your spleen is your wont.) Why won't you discuss the atrocious failure of the "police culture" in Rotherham…?
Is it because you agree with the rapists? Or the constables? Or the politicians??
Or because you prefer to rail against others, far away, whom you do not understand…? (You do understand both the rapists and the cops who looked the other way, don't you? :( That's why you talk unceasingly about other things…) You do understand, and are too ashamed to say you are ashamed…
Such a small man you are, RJ.
Indeed, there are too many police shootings here. And a small number of them are egregious. In a population of over 300 million, that's going to happen…
Aren't your mates still Paki-bashing? Or has the tide turned, and now the Pakis are bashing you?
You were always a violent lot; but your English masters took your guns… (And your religion!) So, you've gotten used to second-class citizenship. You're just rankled subjects, now.
…Seeking other outlets for your violent impulses, ones that don't involve actual peril or combat! :) Like criticizing others (your betters!)…
Surely they can describe perps as they are. Maybe not say words like 'paki' but I'm sure they can use descriptors, such as skin tone. But there's a chance I might be wrong, considering I'm also staring at mostly empty bottle of Bacardi.
Yes, RJ, there is a police psychology "problem": We've lost track of what "law and order" means…
Here in the U.S., suspects are shot to death all too often. In your neck of the woods, young girls are raped — with the convenience of your police forces and political masters.
I have to assume you appreciate and applaud such, since you've never said anything against it…
(That's -of course- unfair: You don't condone such; you're just too preoccupied with your prejudices to pay attention to anything that happens nearby…)
But I won't: You're just a silly old man who doesn't care about anything important.
This is a problem of barbarianism. Barbarians have their "police" acting accordly. Simple as that.
I don't undesrtand why people are surprised with such simple facts of life.
The real and only problem is why such savagery is tolerated amongst developed Nations. Yes, I know, they have the weapons (military, Jewish financial, internet, space...) and menaces all us, so we have to treat them as one of ours...
Like Attila and the such, the method doesn't change at all...
Oakdale, you are STILL doing what I have directly accused you of doing which does you no help at all. That is you think that the recent situation that happened in a town in England is the same as the disastrous and NATIONAL thing that passes for police in America. If every city across Great Britain was in the same boat you could have something but we don't. Clutching at straws while admitting you have a problem is ridiculous and does not reflect on your grey cells. We have nothing that compares nationally with you on the matter in hand and a part admittance then getting the straws out is not helping you one little bit. In modern countries you have probably one of the worst police situations there are and way ahead of everyone. Your legal system is something else and there is also a built-n revenge when one looks at some of the court decisions made contributing to 2.3 million jailed! Maybe the place is so damn dangerous it doesn't matter that so many police forces there are full of mentally deficient shooters. In civilised countries they would NEVER get a job.
That is you think that the recent situation that happened in a town in England is the same as the disastrous and NATIONAL thing that passes for police in America
No,
RJ: I think that what allowed that to happen is the NATIONAL mindset of your "country"…
If every city across Great Britain was in the same boat you could have something but we don't.
You don't look. Indeed, your coppers are told not to.
But you don't care…
In modern countries you have probably one of the worst police situations there are and way ahead of everyone.
I suppose you're still relying upon the BBC and Russian television…
"Modern countries"? Scotland isn't one. Perhaps you think Russia is. Maybe Saudi Arabia… Certainly not Israel!
When "policemen" facilitate the rape of young girls, you say —
meh. (I assume you have no daughters; if you are a man of any sort, I'll also assume you have no sons — else, you'd have taught them better…) Why?
I'd guess, you don't care. You only want to rail against the U.S. and Israel…
You know what you are. (I don't need to say it; everyone else does, too.) Sorry,
RJ, but you've crossed a line…
There is utterly no comparison between those Islamist sex gangs and the history of police inthe US of A. There is no country as bad as you for police stupidity, violence, corruption and mental midget minds. All you do is try and grab any much smaller item to try and equal that which is not satire it is making you look completely stupid. Do our police across the nation go on shooting rampages? No they do not because they are unarmed and even with the special unit that can be called out the results are absolutely nothing like the rampage of your police forces all over the country in cities. So there is utterly no national comparison at all and you would have been better just skipping answering because all you are doing is showing I am correct. There is no comparsion at straw clutching. City police forces in your place are part of the juvenile cowboy atitude on the gun mad country.
The police over there are dangerous and many are just as bad as the crims but they have tended to get away with it as Americans have a great almost emotional kindergarten love of uniforms traditionally and that gets you an open door. Groups of police repeatedly beating an individual up, shooting the unarmed not just once but repeatedly so there is no national comparison and any of the occasional times an armed squad comes out as very high powered investigation applies. Indeed the number of murders here is roughly around 550 and if you did a comparison that is very low even in proportion terms so note that nutjobland man! The hard fact that you have city police in second hand military vehicles from the Pentagon and so on shows you have a very nasty violent country so how come another progressive country has unarmed police and you cannot do that? Grow up sonny.
ps. Don't forget the numbers in jails that you always ignore which is another bad showing.
There is no country as bad as you for police stupidity, violence, corruption and mental midget minds.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about…
Of course, your crime rate is higher: You don't incarcerate — much anymore. Your Police protect "themselves" (…that is, their careers - based upon PC criterion), and the citizens be damned. (But you never
were citizens: You've always been
subjects… Your choice, mate. You're welcome to it; but most of us here in the U.S. wouldn't abide…*)
——————————————————————————————————————————
* Here's an explanation you might understand: http://thedavebowmanshow.com/2016/01/08/free-speech-earns-a-300-fine/
It's a pod-cast by a fellow who was on my local radio for eight years… You can learn about him, if you want.
Do you -can you- understand what he is saying? Do you even care?
You do make America look stupid.
There is NO country as bad as yours for police brutality at all because so many of your police come from a mental corner. Trying to compare us with you is so damn stupid as you are away out in front of not just of us. Your cops are gun-ho because you have never grown up and have a Hollywood mentality problem. Better here for an officer to chase a suspect through a park with a truncheon rather than shoot the unarmed runner well over a dozen times.
There is NO country as bad as yours for police brutality […]
You're delusional,
RJ!
But that's not news… :)
He IS trying to be funny folks because the question is too direct and very true. :hat:
You do make America look stupid.
There is NO country as bad as yours for police brutality at all because so many of your police come from a mental corner. Trying to compare us with you is so damn stupid as you are away out in front of not just of us. Your cops are gun-ho because you have never grown up and have a Hollywood mentality problem. Better here for an officer to chase a suspect through a park with a truncheon rather than shoot the unarmed runner well over a dozen times.
You have no idea what you're babbling about. I have several family who are or were policemen and never harmed a soul and who served with distinction. Are there bad cops? Of course there are. Are most of them bad? Hell no.
The police service is sometimes criticised for incidents that result in deaths due to police firearms usage or in police custody, as well as the lack of competence and impartiality in investigations (in England and Wales only) by the Independent Police Complaints Commission after these events.[77] The Economist stated in 2009:
“ Bad apples ... are seldom brought to justice: no policeman has ever been convicted of murder or manslaughter for a death following police contact, though there have been more than 400 such deaths in the past ten years alone. The IPCC is at best overworked and at worst does not deserve the “I” in its name. ”
— The Economist
Are all British policemen bad? You might know the answer.
I already acknowledged that there would be decent police but you DO have a national problem that cannot just be shoved away because of relations or friends etc are in that job. From one end of the country to the other we have repeatedly seen and had news of beatings, un-necessary shootings (oft with a surfeit of bullets even when a possible felon is unarmed. So it is not a case of sparsely happening offences. It has been an inherent thing and deeply rooted. And again as I stated the modern mobile phone has only betrayed what has been going on for decades. I also noticed that those who get miffed about the police situation totally ignored the news item I mentioned regarding the retired senior officer who publicly stated that too many joining the service are not suitable.
RJ: How much does it bother you, that things are getting better here… (http://wmbriggs.com/post/17703/)? Does it crimp your style?
Don't be afraid: It's just actual empirical statistics.
Are you being serious that things are getting better over there? How blind can a person be.
I've come to believe gun crime is over sensationalized on your telly as a way to justify the ridiculous laws you have.
Tho ridiculous laws and sensationalism are not in short supply anywhere so nothing has even been said yet.
Incidentally, I heard India is making "Selfie Free Zones" - because they have resulted it a few deaths. I wonder if that extends to the roof top of trains? (Ehh, who cares?)
Are you being serious that things are getting better over there? How blind can a person be.
Plucked from Oakdale's reference.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwmbriggs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F01%2Ffbi.homicide.1.jpg&hash=26918c02017223eecae71c38bf3643c2" rel="cached" data-hash="26918c02017223eecae71c38bf3643c2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://wmbriggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/fbi.homicide.1.jpg)
Approximately 1,390 people were shot in New York city by the close of 2014.
In London the number of actual shootings has almost doubled from 123 to 236 in the last six months of 2014.
Number of Murders, United States, 2010: 12,996
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2010: 8,775
Number of Murders, Britain, 2011*: 638
(Since Britain's population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,095 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2011*: 58
(equivalent to 290 US murders)
Number of Murders by crossbow in Britain, 2011*: 2
(equivalent to 10 US murders).
In 2014 the number of shootings in Toronto, Canada, a city about 1/4th the population of NYC, was 48!
The clear message is that if you live in the U.S., you should buy either a gun or a crossbow. Better yet, move to Canada.
A very clever attempt to try and drift away from the hard facts that there is an almost childish attitude to guns in the USA and that includes too many city police forces as well. The BBC reported the other day of this routine incident.
'Daniel Shaver of Texas was killed in January after police came to his hotel room responding to a report of a man pointing a rifle out a window, "Please don't kill me. he cried before officer Philip Brailsford shot him 5 times. The officer has been charged second degree murder.' (saa routine like the sun and moon you poor folk)
This thread is about you police and too many of them are gun ho happ ytime after time. Something that cannot be equalled here in any way whatsoever. Now you have a tv channel on gun selling so proves my point that your country is like immature when it comes to fascination with guns. Time after time unarmed folk getting shot not just once but repeatedly and oh that is well, routine. There is thread here that continued from Opera on the guns issue which I ignore as it has went on long enough going nowhere. So trying to draw some kind of equality with us on the firearms is daft to put it simply and as we are in this thread on police ours are unarmed. There is no mood here for regular police being armed but over the ocean with the daft attitude and so many iffy police you still have a problem. That recent incident I mention is a regular thing whether you like it or not!
West Virginia cop fired for not killing a man with an unloaded gun (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/12/west-virginia-cop-fired-for-not-killing-a-man-with-an-unloaded-gun/?utm_term=.64793d161611)
(original story (http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2016/09/11/Weirton-fired-officer-who-did-not-fire-at-man-with-gun/stories/201609090080))
After responding to a report of a domestic incident on May 6 in Weirton, W.Va., then-Weirton police officer Stephen Mader found himself confronting an armed man.
Immediately, the training he had undergone as a Marine to look at “the whole person” in deciding if someone was a terrorist, as well as his situational police academy training, kicked in and he did not shoot.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,” Mr. Mader recalled, noting the silver handgun was in the man’s right hand, hanging at his side and pointed at the ground.
The man was Ronald D. “R.J.” Williams Jr., 23, of Pittsburgh, and what happened in the seconds after Mr. Mader’s initial decision is still being investigated by Mr. Williams’ family as well as the West Virginia Civil Liberties Union.
Mr. Mader, who was standing behind Mr. Williams’ car parked on the street, said he then “began to use my calm voice.”
“I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it.
“I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and deescalate it. I knew it was a suicide-by-cop” situation.
But just then, two other Weirton officers arrived on the scene, Mr. Williams walked toward them waving his gun — later found to be unloaded — between them and Mr. Mader, and one of them shot Mr. Williams’ in the back of the head just behind his right ear, killing him.
In a meeting with the chief and City Manager Travis Blosser, Mr. Mader said Chief Alexander told him: “We’re putting you on administrative leave and we’re going to do an investigation to see if you are going to be an officer here. You put two other officers in danger.”
Mr. Mader said that “right then I said to him: ‘Look, I didn’t shoot him because he said, ‘Just shoot me.’ ”
On June 7, a Weirton officer delivered him a notice of termination letter dated June 6, which said by not shooting Mr. Williams he “failed to eliminate a threat.”
In the land of opportunities you can't miss an opportunity.
Looser, they say.
And wasn't there an incident with a 13 year old boy with an airgun/ When a policeman saw him with the thing he shot him several times. The traditions continue.
When dealing with a "fresh" news story, it is reasonable to wait for the actual details to come out.
Here are some references to stories about police shootings that used to be fresh, but have become a trend commented on by a conservative in a conservative publication.
I’ve been looking closely at the police-shooting issue for many years, and I’m noticing a trend in many of the worst and most controversial shootings. The police make mistakes that heighten their own sense of danger, and then they “resolve” their own error by opening fire.
[...]
There is no greater violation of liberty than the loss of your own life in your own home at the hands of misguided, panicky, or poorly trained agents of the state.
I'd forgotten about this topic. I posted a presumably relevant entry here: https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=3745.msg84246#msg84246
The bigger problem may not actually be the systemic racism itself, but rather the propensity to violence exhibited by American police. Police here normally deescalates, while police in America can use all manner of excessive violence or even shoot if there's a "reasonable" threat (https://qz.com/727941/how-do-police-handle-violence-in-countries-where-officers-dont-carry-guns/). "We have a society where it's often considered reasonable to take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. The whole legal framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable."
But even so, assuming you fix the corruption and the violence, stopping minorities without any clear motive is at best a waste of tax dollars and a nuisance to those people. Splitting hairs over systemic racism vs propensity to violence sounds more like a way to avoid addressing either one.
A couple of days ago, police officers in Amsterdam were literally attacked (rammed). A handful of warning shots were fired. No one was shot or died while they subdued the suspect with pepper spray. Dutch police usually manages not to shoot people in situations like the West Virginia incident.
(https://images.nrc.nl/wt2GBy-zWDs3TAOi39hnZGKZ4fI=/1920x/filters:no_upscale():format(webp)/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/verdachte-rijdt-in-op-politie-in-centrum-amsterdam35338990.jpg)
Compare the US trend to an incident in Finland, currently in the courts, where two guys had a plan to lure policemen by a fake emergency call, overpower the policemen and rob them of their equipment https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11520120
Two policemen arrived to the location after the fake emergency call. The one who stepped first out of the car was taken hostage. The second policeman stepped out of the car also, grabbed his gun and pointed at the situation, but didn't shoot, because the situation was that the hostage was used as human shield. The criminals shot "warning shots". So the second policeman called for backup by police radio.
The policeman taken hostage managed to turn to run away. The criminals shot after him and wounded him, but he made his escape and survived.
Soon later the backup arrived and a pursuit ensued. The criminals fired several shots during the pursuit, but were eventually caught. None of the policemen reportedly fired a shot. Nobody died.
The guys are facing a bunch of charges, most serious of them attempted murder against all the policemen.
Police culture + gun culture + car culture = 15 bullets for 1 bicyclist
Attorneys say independent autopsy shows Dijon Kizzee was shot 15 times (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-09-22/dijon-kizzee-shot-15-times-attorneys-independent-autopsy)
Attorneys representing the family of Dijon Kizzee said the 29-year-old man sustained 15 gunshot wounds and disputed the Sheriff’s Department’s assertion that he pointed a gun at deputies before he was shot in South L.A. last month.
At a news conference Tuesday, attorney Carl Douglas said deputies fired some of the shots when Kizzee was already on the ground, and that the gunfire didn’t immediately kill him. He said those findings came from an independent autopsy commissioned by the family and displayed a body diagram showing the entry point of each wound.
“What this shows is he was alive and breathing and writhing in pain when the officers continued to stay away,” Douglas said, suggesting that deputies did not render aid during those critical moments as Kizzee bled to death on Aug. 31. Kizzee’s family members stood by, wearing black face masks that said, “Justice for Dijon Kizzee.”
The shooting occurred in the 1200 block of West 109th Place in the Westmont neighborhood after the deputies alleged that Kizzee was riding his bicycle in violation of vehicle codes. The Times has identified the two deputies as a trainee and his supervisor.
A really disgusting nd horrible matter that is sadly very routine over the pond. Even allowing for decent ones in genera America has had a very long and wide terrible police service. In past times not so well known a fact of life until modern times and mobile phone cameras and other such advantages. Wee bit of a time ago mentioned a retired police captain with long service from Philadelphia I noted speaking on television. He openly stated that the country has a deep weakness in the poor standard and belligerence of far to many police and should not be in the job.
Having only ever had minor dealings with the police in my life, such as applying for a passport, it's been interesting to try to figure out how criminal police interrogation works in USA. I've watched a bunch of those interrogations on Youtube now and, in short, police is a total liar and a thief.
People often ask at the police station, "Am I under arrest?" Where does this question come from? Weren't they told that they were under arrest before they arrived at the interrogation room in front of the cameras and mikes? Is this not breach of protocol by the police?
Anyway, when you are at the police station, how is it somehow in question whether you are under arrest or not? Unless you are a witness or victim who showed up voluntarily to give testimony at the police station, yes, you are under arrest, duh. Police officers can call it "detained" sometimes, but it is a distinction without a difference. How is this not obvious?
To the question, the police often answers, "Let me explain everything," and proceeds to explain nothing. Instead, they go straight to leading questions.
Then there's also the business with "rights", the right to remain silent etc. However, the "rights" are only for those explicitly arrested. Therefore, declaration of arrest is delayed as long as possible, preferably until *after* self-snitching. In a rare case when the arrest and rights are spelled out to the detainee before the interrogation, somehow almost nobody makes use of the rights. Part of the reason is that the police weasels when reading the rights, "So you understand your rights, yes? Sign here please. Now, how about...?" and thus the interrogation continues regardless of the rights.
And commentators of the videos often say that the detainees are "not smart". In my view the problem is the culture. The police is geared to trick the system and the detainees are being encouraged to ignore their rights.
Edit: And my theory is confirmed, "There is a very conditioned response [by Americans] to the presence of law enforcement..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGdqYh5F5LE