By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - 11 officers shot, 1 bystander shot during protests over recent shootings

OttoniBastos said:
Welp if BLM were expecting police reform in USA,after this i wouldn't hold my breath.

 

Not like they were going to get it anyway. I Listened to an interview today with cops who had their faces hidden and the things going on in police departments is disgusting. NY cops are literally being told to harass people. One guy recoded the cops calling him a mutt and saying they were going to break his arm for asking why they keep stopping and frisking him. One cop recorded his formal review where they said he need to go out and hand out more 250s and that they know he doesn't want to do it but he has too. Another guy was forced to hand out 250s to two guys leaning against the wall for impeding pedestrian traffic. Cops have turned into glorified revenue collectors.



Around the Network

So instead of focusing on the problems, lets present some actual solutions that would probably go a long way in improving the situation:

- Every police officer should have to wear a body cam which they can't turn off and this video should be public record in addition to every cruiser having a dash cam. They are public servants after all, paid by taxpayers.

- There should be an independent local council made up of citizens and others which regularly reviews the conduct and performance of local police. Police officers should have the ability to anonymously report bad cops or bad behaviors to this council so they don't feel pressure to keep quiet. Police departments should not have investigations being run by people who aren't impartial (ie: a police chief investigating a cop he's known for 20+ years).

- There should be much greater emphasis and training on de-escalation. Police should be armed with options other than just a gun, greater use a things like tasers and other non-leathal weapons should be experimented with. Instead of investing in armored tanks and military grade weapons, the emphasis should be on more non-leathal weapon technology that can disarm or stun/incapatate a person without killing them. 

- Better training in general. You should not be able to walk in off the street and become a police officer in less than one year.

- Police should be incentivized to hire more local people from the immediate communities they serve. These individuals likely know the communities they work in better than some cop who grew up in a completely different area.

- Eliminate arrest and ticket "quotas". This leads to unneccessary harrassment of citizens who aren't doing anything particularily dangerous. Pay cops a higher wage if need be, but they shouldn't be arresting people or handing out tickets just to get a bonus or to get overtime hours so they can make a certain salary. This creates uneeded hostility between officers and the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. 



Soundwave said:

So instead of focusing on the problems, lets present some actual solutions that would probably go a long way in improving the situation:

- Every police officer should have to wear a body cam which they can't turn off and this video should be public record in addition to every cruiser having a dash cam. They are public servants after all, paid by taxpayers.

- There should be an independent local council made up of citizens and others which regularly reviews the conduct and performance of local police. Police officers should have the ability to anonymously report bad cops or bad behaviors to this council so they don't feel pressure to keep quiet. Police departments should not have investigations being run by people who aren't impartial (ie: a police chief investigating a cop he's known for 20+ years).

- There should be much greater emphasis and training on de-escalation. Police should be armed with options other than just a gun, greater use a things like tasers and other non-leathal weapons should be experimented with. Instead of investing in armored tanks and military grade weapons, the emphasis should be on more non-leathal weapon technology that can disarm or stun/incapatate a person without killing them. 

- Better training in general. You should not be able to walk in off the street and become a police officer in less than one year.

- Police should be incentivized to hire more local people from the immediate communities they serve. These individuals likely know the communities they work in better than some cop who grew up in a completely different area.

- Eliminate arrest and ticket "quotas". This leads to unneccessary harrassment of citizens who aren't doing anything particularily dangerous. Pay cops a higher wage if need be, but they shouldn't be arresting people or handing out tickets just to get a bonus or to get overtime hours so they can make a certain salary. This creates uneeded hostility between officers and the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. 

Tons of good points. I know one guy whose son was killed used almost all the money he made from the lawsuit to make some real change in his police department. He made it so that the police are investigated by people outside of the department in another state. He had to spend millions to get it done.



Soundwave said:

So instead of focusing on the problems, lets present some actual solutions that would probably go a long way in improving the situation:

- Every police officer should have to wear a body cam which they can't turn off and this video should be public record in addition to every cruiser having a dash cam. They are public servants after all, paid by taxpayers.

- There should be an independent local council made up of citizens and others which regularly reviews the conduct and performance of local police. Police officers should have the ability to anonymously report bad cops or bad behaviors to this council so they don't feel pressure to keep quiet. Police departments should not have investigations being run by people who aren't impartial (ie: a police chief investigating a cop he's known for 20+ years).

- There should be much greater emphasis and training on de-escalation. Police should be armed with options other than just a gun, greater use a things like tasers and other non-leathal weapons should be experimented with. Instead of investing in armored tanks and military grade weapons, the emphasis should be on more non-leathal weapon technology that can disarm or stun/incapatate a person without killing them. 

- Better training in general. You should not be able to walk in off the street and become a police officer in less than one year.

- Police should be incentivized to hire more local people from the immediate communities they serve. These individuals likely know the communities they work in better than some cop who grew up in a completely different area.

- Eliminate arrest and ticket "quotas". This leads to unneccessary harrassment of citizens who aren't doing anything particularily dangerous. Pay cops a higher wage if need be, but they shouldn't be arresting people or handing out tickets just to get a bonus or to get overtime hours so they can make a certain salary. This creates uneeded hostility between officers and the citizens they're supposed to be protecting. 

   1)  Many departments have this, with smaller ones trying but lacking budget.  However, oftentimes the footage is either inconclusive or just doesn't show what the public wants it to.  Most cop shootings are either good shootings or good faith errors.  The former is not a crime and the latter is worthy of firing but does not meet the standards for murder under the law (might be strong enough for lesser charges, depends on the mistake).  The bad shootings are the far minority so keep that in mind with regards to this.

2)  I mean this is a classic conundrum of society, searching for impartial investigations and judges.  Problem is elected officials can be worse than cops who are too tight with their comrades.  For one, these people would have to be trained investigators which means the majority will likely be ex cops anyway.  Second, if there's a mob outside demanding that an officer be "brought to justice" but then evidence seems to point to him just doing his job, what faith can we have that these people will do the right thing rather than do the thing that keeps them elected?  I would first recommend restructuring of the IAB myself, creating greater and more distinct separating between it and other departments rather than trying to create an elected oversight commity.  Also, States can already launch inquiries and investigations into local police conduct on statewide levels.  And cops *can* anonymously turn in corrupt cops, but eventually they will HAVE to testify cause 1) the case will need witnesses and 2) the accused has a right to face his accuser.  Also, keep in mind that corrupt cops are usually not the ones that end up shooting people.  The last thing they want is IAB or the State investigating them.  Just food for thought.

3)  Police are managed on the State and City levels, always have been, so the emphasis on de-escalation will vary.  Dallas, a department ironically mocked in this thread, is actually a very progressive and forward-thinking department in this area but more on that in a bit.  Each area is different, but yes there is a growing school of thought that de-escalation is the way forward.  Ironically, those who turn violent in response to Police incidents are the ones preventing this from progressing cause the moment a guy shoots 11 cops the kneejerk reaction from the public is escalation.  Also, cops already cary a nightstick and a taser.  Which is one of many reasons the vast, vast majority of cops never discharge their fire arm in the line of duty.  And the vast, vast majority of cops don't drive tanks, they drive ordinary cars and cary a side arm and possibly a shotgun in the trunk.  In fact, in my area (in between 3 good sized cities) I have never even seen a SWAT van or heavily armored car.  And no police department *investigates* in those things. 

4)  That varies wildly from city to city.  Most large city cops are well trained.  In fact, most are well trained in general until you get out into the really small towns.  Of course, there's more of them so there's greater odds of a careless or bad one here or there slipping in.  Also, the time argument is just not an accurate evaluation.  Dallas has an entry period of a bit more than 1 year and yet has been making major strides in good relations with the community, has greatly reduced the number of confrontations with the civilians, greatly reduced police involved shootings, and all this de-escalation has led to a reduction in crime to.  Read here:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/07/08/what-dallas-pd-does-right-and-why-doing-those-things-could-now-be-more-difficult/ It's not about time to enter the force, it's the quality of the training and the attitude and conduct of the police department in general and what they do to keep their cops top notch and focused on the mission and doing that mission right. 

5)  That usually happens naturally, a good point though.

6)  Here I actually whole heartedly agree, petty enforcement is often very mismanaged.  Not only does it breed tension (reducing it in Dallas has done wonders) but it also doesn't do what it's purpose is.  The purpose is to maintain general order in daily conduct.  But often they wind up pulling over people who made honest, understandable errors rather than people intentionally behaving recklessly.  I would rather them pull over a quarter of people but have those people be genuine reckless drivers than pull over people who missed a sign at a speedtrap and were speeding for a whopping 5 seconds. 

Not bad points, just trying to give a realistic picture of where things stand.  Police in many areas do need improvement, I agree.  However, we cannot fix the problem until we objectively evaluate the problem from an analytical perspective detatched from the emotional rollercoaster of current events.  Examining it from a sensationalized position based on hyperbolic statemtents won't do.  And that goes for criticizing AND defending the police.  We have to nail *exactly* what things are like so that we can target these issues or we risk making sweeping statements and potentially sweeping changes that can have unforseen negative consequences. 



Looking at the issue from statistical standpoint, I don't see any base for calling it a racial thing really. At least there's no more racial bias in police actions that in life itself. Though looking at impressive death toll of those who were shot by the police, there're certainly some issues within the law enforcement. But that's not the point. The point is can you make it a racial thing with good marketing and PR? Yes, you can.



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
tokilamockingbrd said:

My brother in law is a cop. In the past 2 years he has had 2 fellow officer in his district(a fairly smalltown district at that) killed by black men. He was close to one of them. He would be lying if he said he was able to put that out of the back of his mind when he was dealing with a black man. That does not mean he wants to shoot them, it means he fears for his own life and that could effect the way he escalates force. 

No offence dude but if he's that affected he shouldn't be policing.

are you a cop? or been in the military?

I am in the military, so thankfully I dont have to deal with this all the time, however when I was deployed to Iraq I came to understand howsomeone could feel this way.

We worked with the Iraqi police regularly. One of the other LTs in a different company was doing the same thing I did when out of the blue one of those Iraqi police shot him in the back of the neck. Needless to say from then on when working with them I never let one out of site and kept my weapon in a position when I could easily defend myself if need be. Thankfully I never had a situation where I felt threatened, but if I had I would have chosen to protect myself.



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

tokilamockingbrd said:

are you a cop? or been in the military?

I am in the military, so thankfully I dont have to deal with this all the time, however when I was deployed to Iraq I came to understand howsomeone could feel this way.

We worked with the Iraqi police regularly. One of the other LTs in a different company was doing the same thing I did when out of the blue one of those Iraqi police shot him in the back of the neck. Needless to say from then on when working with them I never let one out of site and kept my weapon in a position when I could easily defend myself if need be. Thankfully I never had a situation where I felt threatened, but if I had I would have chosen to protect myself.

Except we don't care how someone comes to feel this way we only factor in whether someone should be policing being affected in a way you say, if he has this underlying bias towards a certain ethnic group when walking the streets which can lead to him killing an innocent than he shouldn't be policing plain and simple, in the UK he would not be allowed to police as being affected that much by an incident can lead to very bad decisions, should this guy make one mistake one day and people hear what you've just posted here it would be in the media as another racially bias cop itching to kill a black person. 



Wyrdness said:
tokilamockingbrd said:

are you a cop? or been in the military?

I am in the military, so thankfully I dont have to deal with this all the time, however when I was deployed to Iraq I came to understand howsomeone could feel this way.

We worked with the Iraqi police regularly. One of the other LTs in a different company was doing the same thing I did when out of the blue one of those Iraqi police shot him in the back of the neck. Needless to say from then on when working with them I never let one out of site and kept my weapon in a position when I could easily defend myself if need be. Thankfully I never had a situation where I felt threatened, but if I had I would have chosen to protect myself.

Except we don't care how someone comes to feel this way we only factor in whether someone should be policing being affected in a way you say, if he has this underlying bias towards a certain ethnic group when walking the streets which can lead to him killing an innocent than he shouldn't be policing plain and simple, in the UK he would not be allowed to police as being affected that much by an incident can lead to very bad decisions, should this guy make one mistake one day and people hear what you've just posted here it would be in the media as another racially bias cop itching to kill a black person. 

He would never admit to it affecting him, and of course it would cost him his job if he announced he was jumpy around black people.  I am stating is it is human nature(basic survival skills) to let past events affect the way you handle future circumstances. If you do not do this, well you lack basic survival skills and won't last long anyways (if you are in a position where your life is repeatedly in danger). I personally know 2 white cops who were murdered in cold blood (before this BLM mess) by black people. They only made local news. One was shot while trying to arrest someone, he was pursueing a young black man and when the young man reached behind him... he did not shoot, so he my friend is now dead. One was sitting in his car and a black man walked up and shot him in the head.

Cops are not eager to kill people. However, they want to stay alive. You said you are from the UK. you guys ended slavely earlier than we did and did a much much better job of intergrating former slaves into society than my ancestors did. My generation is now paying for their mistakes. 



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.

tokilamockingbrd said:
Wyrdness said:

Except we don't care how someone comes to feel this way we only factor in whether someone should be policing being affected in a way you say, if he has this underlying bias towards a certain ethnic group when walking the streets which can lead to him killing an innocent than he shouldn't be policing plain and simple, in the UK he would not be allowed to police as being affected that much by an incident can lead to very bad decisions, should this guy make one mistake one day and people hear what you've just posted here it would be in the media as another racially bias cop itching to kill a black person. 

He would never admit to it affecting him, and of course it would cost him his job if he announced he was jumpy around black people.  I am stating is it is human nature(basic survival skills) to let past events affect the way you handle future circumstances. If you do not do this, well you lack basic survival skills and won't last long anyways (if you are in a position where your life is repeatedly in danger). I personally know 2 white cops who were murdered in cold blood (before this BLM mess) by black people. They only made local news. One was shot while trying to arrest someone, he was pursueing a young black man and when the young man reached behind him... he did not shoot, so he my friend is now dead. One was sitting in his car and a black man walked up and shot him in the head.

Cops are not eager to kill people. However, they want to stay alive. You said you are from the UK. you guys ended slavely earlier than we did and did a much much better job of intergrating former slaves into society than my ancestors did. My generation is now paying for their mistakes. 

If you are "jumpy" around black people, you should do the right thing as a police officer and turn in your badge and gun. 

A black person doesn't deserve to be put into a position where your "jumpiness" or bias (justified or not) could cost them their life because of a misunderstanding. 

If you are "jumpy" around an entire large racial group, you aren't fit to be a police officer. 

I'm sorry if that's harsh, however the police are *public* servants, they are accountable to the public, it is not the public's job to put them at ease. 

If you cannot ensure public safety because of some bias/issue you have you are not fit in high pressure situations where a mistake you make could mean death for someone else, in the same way a pilot who has an issue with say vertigo or is "jumpy" in tight spaces shouldn't be flying a freaking air craft. 



Soundwave said:
tokilamockingbrd said:

He would never admit to it affecting him, and of course it would cost him his job if he announced he was jumpy around black people.  I am stating is it is human nature(basic survival skills) to let past events affect the way you handle future circumstances. If you do not do this, well you lack basic survival skills and won't last long anyways (if you are in a position where your life is repeatedly in danger). I personally know 2 white cops who were murdered in cold blood (before this BLM mess) by black people. They only made local news. One was shot while trying to arrest someone, he was pursueing a young black man and when the young man reached behind him... he did not shoot, so he my friend is now dead. One was sitting in his car and a black man walked up and shot him in the head.

Cops are not eager to kill people. However, they want to stay alive. You said you are from the UK. you guys ended slavely earlier than we did and did a much much better job of intergrating former slaves into society than my ancestors did. My generation is now paying for their mistakes. 

If you are "jumpy" around black people, you should do the right thing as a police officer and turn in your badge and gun. 

A black person doesn't deserve to be put into a position where your "jumpiness" or bias (justified or not) could cost them their life because of a misunderstanding. 

If you are "jumpy" around an entire large racial group, you aren't fit to be a police officer. 

I'm sorry if that's harsh, however the police are *public* servants, they are accountable to the public, it is not the public's job to put them at ease. 

If you cannot ensure public safety because of some bias/issue you have you are not fit in high pressure situations where a mistake you make could mean death for someone else, in the same way a pilot who has an issue with say vertigo or is "jumpy" in tight spaces shouldn't be flying a freaking air craft. 

I already said someone known to be jumpy would not be allowed to patrol. Likely if it was caused by a tramitic experiance they would be stuck at a desk or the evidence room... 

So jumpy is not really the right word. Extra cautious is probably a better way to say it. And it you look up the crime statisics in certain areas, it would be wise to be extra cautious. 



psn- tokila

add me, the more the merrier.