About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

OB1Shinobi wrote: I think we need to do this in our day to day lives with the people around us, yes, but not with police shootings. Theres no way youre going to know the actual character of a police officer. You assume you know their character, but thats an incorrect assumption. We have to judge shootings based off of the actual evidence. The evidence includes all the backstory: why were the police called/what was the dispatch? How did the police approach the suspect and was it reasonable given the nature of the dispatch? How did the suspect behave when approached? This is why body cams are so important.

who's arguing that EVERY police shooting is bad? I don't know anyone who's saying that. But if a person in car tells the officer that they have a gun and they have a permit for it and the officer basically murders them out of fear that... after being warned... that his life is in danger because a gun exists somewhere in the vehicle. It's like you, as the suspect, have to be more mature, more calm, more respectful, more everything... than the guy wearing the badge. And that's what I have a problem with.

I've been living in Cincinnati temporarily which is the same city where a campus police officer basically kills a guy trying to drive away over missing front plate and expired driver's license. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose)

I don't see the point in arguing every shooting where it is arguably a good decision. If you get food poisoning from a restaurant with rats is it a good defense to say "but what about all the times we didn't kill people with our food and what about the times we didn't have rats?" "Tamir Rice was a tragedy, but what about all the other kids who weren't shot or all the other kids that are hardcore criminals who shoot people over video games?" What does that have to do with any situation involving an unarmed person getting shot and killed? Do you think their family gives one ounce of an F (scuse my lingo) about some other kid when their innocent CHILD is shot dead, not by some bad kid, but by an officer of the law representing their government? Do you think it is even remotely consolation? And yes, I'll say it. How many innocent white kids have been shot playing with guns by police officers?

How did Tamir Rice behave when approached? He was shot in like 2 seconds. Plus he's a kid. What's the argument? That cops are allowed be scared and freak out and break protocol but no one on the other side of their gun is allowed to do the same under penalty of death?

I found the video of the white suspect shot in the hall (I think it was at a hotel) equally disturbing because even though he had the opportunity to comply he was clearly trying to comply but was being given ridiculous instructions by the officer. "crawl to me" Seriously? No... Clearly he should have had him put his hands up and the against the wall and then WAIT THERE for the officer to approach, pat him down or whatever, to determine if he had a weapon. Then he should have put one cuff on with his hands still on the wall, and put them behind his back, one by one, and that's only IF there was reason to detain the guy. If there wasn't he could have just talked to him. So I'm bringing up all these other cases because I see no reason to make excuses for the very specific behavior of some police officers that is in question. I don't see a credible reason to muddy those waters by talking about situations with behavior that is not in question.

OB1Shinobi wrote: How many times have you been locked up? What drugs have you sold? What drugs have you done? These are personal questions but, respectfully, i think your ideas about drug dealers make sense to you because your only knowledge of them comes from popular entertainment. I get the impression that youve never been involved with the druggie life (the real druggie life) pr the crime life at all. I understand thats personal. We can talk about it in PM if youd prefer. Or not. Actually living the life gives you a more realistic perspective.

I have been arrested 2 times, handcuffed 3 times. Both arrests had to do with traffic violations; the results of both cases I find excessive as well as an example of the system trying to squeeze money out of its citizens. The other, and the closest I've ever come to getting shot, was when my father got notified that there was a possible break in at our church and we both went there to check it out and meet whatever officer that got dispatched. And if there was an issue (with a suspect) I didn't want my father being there alone so I got there first. And as I looked at the windows for signs of a break in, little did I know that the cop would assume I was the suspect. I tried to explain the situation to him but he believed all of nothing I said. He decided I was probably guilty and proceeded to arrest me. He put me face down on the concrete, pulled my hand and arm back in a very uncomfortable position, put his knee in my back, and cuffed me. Fortunately, my father pulled up or I would have gone to jail.

No, I've never sold drugs. However I know people, very personally, who have. I've never used drugs (outside of marijuana in my 30s) but I know someone who has and someone who has paranoid schizophrenia, likely from drugs the first time he was locked up, and never been the same since. And ever since then he's been mostly homeless and probably gets arrested sometimes on purpose just to get out of the cold. He told me sometimes the cops just beat him up for no reason. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I'm 40 years old. Not everything I know is from TV. And if I had been shot, it wouldn't have been because I was joy riding, but because I was actually trying to do what I believed to be the right thing; protecting my father. Point is, you don't have to be doing something bad or somehow "asking for it" to get shot by law enforcement. And if I felt MY life was in danger then I can only imagine it worse for those who look like me but but have adapted to life in the streets where they need a different mentality in order to survive.

OB1Shinobi wrote: But you cant be around crack heads or heroin addicts and not see that youre destroying people for money.

Not all drug dealers sell crack or heroin. And when people are coming to them to get it, its not a situation everyone is going to interpret as them destroying that person. Trust me, I thought the opposite 20 years ago. As a matter of fact, when TV was all I had to inform my opinion I just thought selling drugs was terrible period and the people who did it were destroying their community. I'm not now saying its somehow a good thing. I'm just saying its not a black and white issue. How many bartenders think they're destroying people who come into their bar and buy multiple drinks until they get wasted? How many pharmacists and doctors think they're destroying people when they prescribe opiates that the person might get addicted to? Some people go to drug dealers, but some people go to doctors for the same thing. And so that's why I'm telling you its not that simple. Which is why drugs should be seen as a public health issue rather than strictly a criminal issue. I know we weren't around during prohibition but think about how much violence there was between the police and guys selling alcohol. Think about it. How many people die from alcohol? How many people are in AA because of alcohol? But its perfectly legal and bartenders don't have to carry guns because they're afraid of other bartenders. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As much as we have criminalized drugs, has it stopped drug abuse? Do you think the gangsters that pushed alcohol were that different from the gangsters today who push drugs? Where do you think they learned from? It's the exact same dynamics. They're selling a black market product that people want and there's competition from other illegal suppliers that sometimes don't respect territorial boundaries because they want more profits. How is that so different from corporations? Corporations destroy lives with greed too but its legal so they don't have to worry about getting shot. Not mention that a lot of "legit business" are started with illegal money; the number of which is actually depressing to me. And if the only difference is the law, who does the law serve? Who can change the law? What's the difference between a bar and a marijuana dispensary? And why is it always "your fault" when the rules could be different if "everyone" simply got on board with changing them?

My family is from Jamaica. Weed was legalized there not too long ago. Before that a lot of people were getting killed, both by other people, and by the police. And it created a bad relationship between police, government (babylon) and citizens. And do you know the biggest reason it was illegal? Because it was illegal in the United States. You think Jamaica was just so against marijuana? It's part of the culture. And how many people have ever died from actually using it? So I hear you. I'm not unreasonable. But I want you to see that there's another side to this thing and even if you see a difference between weed and heroin, that doesn't mean a person using or selling it is treated any different.

And yes, I could make similar arguments with prostitution, gambling, etc. It is society that judges these things and makes it illegal in an attempt to legislate them away. But it doesn't work. It just creates a dangerous underground in which no one has any legal obligation or protection. And so if you sell weed in Ohio you can go to jail for years but if you sell it in California you can go to the bank and deposit your profits. And instead of taking you to jail, maybe the cop decides to shoot you instead. And maybe you're scared of cops so you run. And maybe you hire kids because they'll only go to juvenile detention if they get caught, instead of prison. There are a lot of consequences, unintended or intended, that can make matters worse. And I say everyone needs to be responsible; including lawmakers and the people who vote for them.

OB1Shinobi wrote: It took me a while to figure this out but ive come to this conclusion: the decision as to whether or not to fire is the important thing. This is a yes/no answer to the question “is deadly force appropriate?” There is no shooting people in the leg, theres no shooting to wound, and there are no “warning shots”. If an officer fires, it is to kill. The important issue is what should the policies on use of deadly force be? If the decision to fire is justified based on the existing policy then it doesnt matter how many bullets were used. Use as many as seems necessary.

The job of police officers is to arrest people. If you know the law you're in a much better position when you deal with them. They will make you think you have to answer their questions when most often, it is simply a trap. They have nothing on you but they will if you give them something. So, do police officers often do the right thing? Of course. Dayton, Ohio is my home town. Dave Chappelle just had a concert there in the wake of a mass shooting. We support the police when they do what they're supposed to do. We pay them to protect us.

We don't pay cops to plant evidence on us. We don't pay them to make sure we're in the right area because we don't look like other residents. We don't pay them to make sure we're not carrying weapons or run our ID when there is no crime that they're responding to. There is a wide range of behaviors that not all police have in common, but enough have for it to be a problem. Have you listened to the Mark Furhman tapes? The fact is that many officers have explicit or implicit bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKd_7QL-q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8G7MtRNlk

It doesn't have to be this way. But first we have to recognize there's a problem before there can be an acceptable solution. Because, guess what, NO I'm not going to be receptive to treating people of a similar age group the same any more than treating people of the same race the same. Why do you even know how many black kids have been suspects in other crimes? What made you even look that up? What made you think that was relevant information? What about all the good kids like mine, who don't do anything criminal and don't deserve to be treated like they have? What about millions of black people who aren't criminals? Do we factor into the equation anywhere? Do positive statistics ever work in our favor?

Sometimes its the person's fault. But sometimes its the officer. I can't play with a toy because of what? Because someone will think that ME (for some reason) playing with a toy isn't playing and therefore, the gun isn't a toy gun. No, somehow I MUST be running around Walmart with a loaded weapon? You've heard zero gun shots, zero cries for help, zero screaming, zero people are running away from me, but one person gets scared because their brain thinks that this is something someone who looks like me might do. THAT is the truth. And because of that call, police officers get there and add their own biases and assumptions to the point where maybe I'm a terrorist and everyone around me is a potential hostage and so they feel like they have to shoot me to protect everyone else. But the whole story is ridiculous and there were several opportunities to avoid that outcome but people ignored the biases of the caller.

Irrational behavior is not limited to suspects. And sometimes rational behavior can be bad too. I shouldn't have to live in fear because of what other people have done who look like me. I'm me. They are them. If an officer sees them when he sees me that's a problem. And that makes me and others more likely to see those guys in the white hoods when we see them. And that's a problem too. But I can't say the person reacting to the problem is wrong without first addressing the problem they're reacting to. And I definitely am not going to treat people like they're imagining things when they are the victim of implicit or explicit bias while people who share that bias are like "oh well... tried to save him, but he had one of those black diseases", or ... "oh well, turns out he was reaching for his wallet but he should have perfectly heard and followed my instructions if he wanted to live today because some people try to shoot us."

This idea that someone COULD be doing something threatening is being taken to an extreme. And its based on the idea that every criminal suspect is some kind of stupid wannabe action star who can, with hands already up, reach for, pull out, and shoot 2-4 officers before any of them, who already have weapons pointed center mass, can pull the trigger. And of course when they all tell the story about the kid they had to shoot, that's exactly what happened. And when the story is repeated on the news, other people hear it and think, "yup. Those *bleeps* are crazy." This is how the stereotype gets reinforced and then new police reacting to that reinforced stereotype.

And it goes both ways. Police get stereotyped too and so a suspect has to then think, what's the best way to survive the encounter. Is it to run? Is it to shoot? Or is it to cooperate when he or she might still get killed. There is a long history, way longer than BLM, that some people are reacting to and somehow these "unfortunate mistakes" tend to happen a lot in the same community. We now have cops shooting people in their own homes. It's been out of control but it gets worse when cops are made to think they have the authority to act like James Bond. They don't have a license to kill. Their job is to arrest suspects to be tried by the judicial system. The fact they manage to do this more often if you don't look like me, says something. But no, I'm not going to cosign or justify anyone's fear of me, just because I'm 6'2 and over 250lbs. How much less would I justify a fear of children. That is the problem of those who are afraid. And those who are afraid will continue to create that reality.

"The job of police officers is to arrest people."
No

"If you know the law you're in a much better position when you deal with them."
Yes

If you think your rights are abrogated at any point in an encounter with an LEO, record the entire thing if possible, and call a lawyer afterwards. Any time a government official steps over the bounds of their authority, and does something ultra vires that gives you standing, you are entitled to remedy.
If you're being stopped, just ask them *politely* if you're under arrest, and if their requests are commands.

Unfortunately the standards for a police killing someone is different from a regular person doing the same thing. Justice is harder to serve, but in cases like Botham Jean's murder, it does happen.

Here in the states , cops are a strange thing. Like most things , change comes from action. Here is no exception.
My dealings with police isn’t a good thing when it happens. At that point all avenues are taken or tried.
Cops are my last resort always. Citizens have a very unique ability to mob or to help. Some times ya don’t need much help but some times it can help.
Read and heard about the kid who brought a gun to school and the teacher grabbed him - held him till all was over. One act of bravery may save a life or influence another. There are jerks out there. I try to tell my family and children and friends but not everything is sunshine and daisys - don’t put your self in that spot. If you do find yourself there... know what to do. I tell people here anything they feel threatened call the police and log it. Even if it’s the cops there - call some one. Ask for a boss. Be smart. Be safe think. Know your limits. Learn em. Bravery is cool some times but a smart person will ask a cop if they are drawn to call their supervisor and get some one there - things usually change or at least help. There’s always a bigger fish can apply here- every body works for someone. A log of activity can help those in charge see more than just random shots in the dark.

Rex wrote: "The job of police officers is to arrest people."
No

Google: The duties of a police officer, also known as a law enforcement officer, focus on protecting people and property. They patrol the areas they are assigned, which sometimes include entire jurisdictions, respond to calls, enforce laws, make arrests, issue citations, and occasionally testify in court cases.

(as opposed to "killing bad guys")

The point is, that if protecting people means having to take someone else's life, then that's fine if that's what you have to do even though its still making a choice between one life and another. However, if it's property, then that's not okay because a life is more valuable than any property. But if the only perceived threat is to the officer, then this is wear bias and fear often enter into the equation and the police, in my opinion, act outside of their mandate.

Far too often, the police show up to a scene, and because they're more scared than anyone else, they escalate the situation into a life or death game of some kind of old western. Except the police, standing at a distance, must be more ready to kill you at all times than whatever defensive action you could possibly take against them. And on one hand its tactical from a personal perspective. They're getting taught martial arts techniques as well as shooter techniques designed to make make sure they don't get hurt... that THEY are protected.

Although that seems very reasonable...

If you condition the mind to think they're in danger and you trigger their training as a reflex, they might mentally "go back to Nam" and now "Charlie" is trying to get them. I don't mean to make it sound so extreme, but understand what I'm saying. When it becomes about the cop and the cop's life and the cop's safety... its no longer about protecting and serving the community. The risk to one's safety is inherent to the job. When a firefighter goes into a burning building they know their life is in danger and their gear is 100% protection. They don't just run away if the fire's too big. With police, I can understand if there's a report of shots fired. You should change your approach. Your weapon should be drawn. You should be taking cover and using squad tactics. But if you treat every situation the same, that's how a lot of unarmed people get killed. And again... that's not their job. The worst behavior I've seen is when a cop cannot catch a fleeing suspect so they shoot them in the back. And they can't seem to develop non-lethal weapons that can be used at a distance (like the bolo gun in Death Stranding). And even then its like they have to shoot to kill.

But I'm telling you guys... it's their job to arrest, not to kill. We have to decide, as a society, how much we value human life. If its a fetus a lot of people lose their minds over trying to protect it. But if its 13+, someone's child, someone's grand baby, they're fine if the kid looks scary. "oh noooooo he has on a hoodie! Shoot!" The police don't take it as their job to protect and serve the suspect because in their minds that person is the offender and not part of the community. But a different suspect... they might even take to Burger King after he guns down a church. Someone else though, can simply have a gun in the car and get shot even after telling the cop that he has a license for it. It's ridiculous. And a lot of it boils down to how scared someone is and how much they rely on their gun to overcome that fear. And my opinion is that if you're THAT scared you shouldn't even have a gun, much less a badge that says you get to use one.

The force continuum might sound like something we believe in here, but it covers lethal use of force when LEOs are attempting to do their job. If the possibility of using lethal force wasn't in LE's purview, why are they issued handguns? Edit: there are 3 depts in the US I could find which had some unarmed officers, so not all police are armed.

If what you meant to say was that Police aren't hit squads meant to shoot first instead of arrest, yes that is what they should be.

ZealotX wrote: Yes. In this case I understand why the officer thought he had to fire. But do I think the man had to die? No.

He didnt have to die, he could have put down the gun. He could have not assaulted someone with a gun in the first place. He could have not tried to drag her away when the police showed up. He got himself killed by beating and threatening to murder that woman and by not obeying the police when they arrived. He is not the victim here, that woman is. Her son is. Even the police officer who now has to reconcile the fact that he killed someone is more of a victim than the guy who was killed, imo.

It was a very dangerous and volatile situation and he was more than likely disturbed.

Responding to people with mental health issues is a serious topic which, thankfully is beginning to get attention among law enforcement agencies. Most LEO and agencies dont have appropriate training or response teams. THAT BEING SAID: There is a comedian named Ron White who did a bit about the death penalty where he said something along these lines: if youre the kind of crazy person that eats crayons and finger-paints with doodoo then I feel empathy for you and say we should feed you for the rest of your life.If youre the kind of crazy person that murders grandmothers and children...eh, you should have ate crayons and finger painted with doodoo, lol. I agree with his basic sentiment: if your mental health issue drives you to murdering people, eh, youre a murderer. Id rather see the murderer killed than his victims killed.

You don't have a lot of time to think. I assume the officer fired to protect the woman because it wasn't clear whether she was a hostage or whether he was just going to shoot her no matter what. But I WISH he could have been engaged in conversation by asking him questions. "Sir, what happened? Is your mother okay? What happened to your mother? What's her name? What did this woman do to you that made you mad?"

This last bit makes me wonder if you actually did watch the video. The guy screaming "thats my momma" was not the guy with the gun.

Where I agree with you is that I think police need to be trained to be more patient and to be able to relate to suspects in a way that personalizes everyone involved - a way that is respectful of peoples dignity, even if they are suspected of something. The real-world application of that is more complicated than I think most people realize.
What i have to point out is that you dont know that the officer didnt try asking him questions. Im quite confident the officer was saying something to the guy, but we cant hear it. All we hear is the woman's son in the background yelling "thats my momma!". We have no clue what the officer said. Also notice the cop didnt fire until the guy tried dragging her away (possibly by her hair, we cant tell). So, the cop didnt just blast this dude, he fired when he saw the suspect was going to escalate the situation.

But the problem is that a lot of this decision is based on the level of fear that the officer has. The more afraid he is the more likely he is to interpret the situation as a lost cause and the person as unreasonable or nonresponsive. There was another situation with a disturbed man but his family was able to diffuse both the suspect AND the officer, convincing the officer that the individual wasn't a threat. One of them even had to get between the officer and the individual. When a disturbed individual gets their hands on a gun... that's very serious.

I posted a specific video of a specific incident to open the discussion to a specific sub-topic: "why do police fire so many rounds when they shoot people". Its ok if we talk about other incidents but if we you want to bring up a specific incident please include links to sources which give a thorough explanation of the event.




[/quote]But if you notice most of the controversy over police shootings, isn't when the suspect has a gun or even when the suspect is disturbed. [/quote]

I see people flipping out about all kinds of police shootings.

I'm a bit older (I GUESS) now so I remember back in the day when there were less guns and people actually got in fist fights. If I talked about fist fights with the current generation they'd probably be like "Ok, Boomer". I'm not a Boomer. It wasn't that long ago!

Same! The irony is they also think they are "harder" because they do something stupidly extreme lol not fully understanding the only reason theyre jumping the gun is because theyre afraid theyll get their a$$ beat.

The problem is that shootings of UNARMED people happen too.

Yes, and then people who have no clue about the reality of cops being shot chime in that because the person was unarmed that they werent dangerous. You dont actually know a person is unarmed until theyve been restrained and searched. this guy was passed out from heroin on a bus. After the being revived, an officer was talking to him and he pulled out a gun and killed one of the firefighters who came there to help him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4L97igDjY

This guy said he wasnt armed and was talking calmly and coolly with the police officer until he oh-so-casually
removed a pistol from his coat and killed the officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssARbfxqTh0

The Washington Post has been compiling a database of police shootings for several years, now. The search filters are OK, you can search by gender, state, race, age, mental illness, body cam footage, weapon type, and unarmed. In the past i have encountered a pay wall but theres a lot you can get out of it without having to subscribe and its a great resource for anyone interested in the topic. Its based on news reports and in many cases some of the details (such as race or type of weapon) are unknown.

Based on what IS known, we can say that 810 people have been fatally shot by police so far this year. 458 of them were armed with a gun, 141 were armed with a knife, 20 were in possession of a toy weapon (one of those was 14 yrs old, the rest were adults) 52 were potentially using a vehicle as a weapon, 49 had “other” weapon, 35 were unarmed, and 55 were categorized “unknown”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

ZealotX wrote: But a different suspect... they might even take to Burger King after he guns down a church.

That didnt happen. Black Twitter and the far left SJW bozo media bobble-heads are lying to you.
Heres a link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/amp/


Heres a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRUBEfIStU

As an investigator It's not your job to determine guilt, it's your job to collect facts in order for a judge (or other system) to determine guilt.

You're also required to ensure anyone being questioned, whether they conducted the alleged act, or are being questioned for other reasons, is aware of their rights and responsibilities, and is offered appropriate water and bathroom breaks.

It's not a far stretch to imagine in certain jurisdictions or circumstances, you are required to offer some kind of food as well.

Edit: Just putting this in to emphasise, in case anyone is not clear (noting that this may vary with different countries and government styles, but it is broadly the concept) - if you murder a child with a chainsaw, and a police officer sees you do it - as long as you put the chainsaw down and make it obvious you are no longer a threat before the police officer can shoot you - they can not shoot you.
They can shoot you if you are still a threat, or about to be a threat, or look like you might be about to be a threat*, but if you are not a threat, if the alleged crime is over, they are not the judge, they can not conduct an on the spot execution to save the taxpayer money, they can only arrest you, and ask questions within their jurisdiction (the least of which is generally just to confirm your identity, so they can hand you over to higher investigative authorities)



*Which is why cops in movies say things like "make my day" if you make a threatening move, they can (legally) act to stop you - which is probably (again broadly, I don't have Ob1s interest in fact checking) the primary defence used by police in shooting investigations.





As far as having your kate and edith too - People seem to swing wildly from wanting Police to be friendly park rangers, to wanting them to be judge, jury and executioner.

What do you want? Cops to shoot first, shoot more, shoot again, and not ask questions, or do you want them to be impartial, humane, and uphold due process?

Do you want them to have powers to protect themselves, and the innocent?

Noting, that whatever powers you give them - they're not going to get everything right 100% of the time. Hindsight and a thousand shaky vertical-shot phone camera chunks of footage are great - none of which they have access to at the time they are required to make a decision.

and if you give them no powers - well, would you do a job where you have to deal with people at their worsts moments every day, but you have no right to protect the innocent or yourself? Would you turn up to that? If so, how much would you want to be paid for that risk to your health (both physical and mental) ?

There's also a big difference between having essentially a proactive injunction against using force and having damages actions for the occasions when law enforcement oversteps. I think that remedies have been gutted, and still are the best overall legislative framework for law enforcement to follow.

They're just enforcement officers. The root of the problem is in the Law they enforce.

Like not holding a gun to someone else's head in the video shown?

ZealotX wrote: I shouldn't have to live in fear because of what other people have done who look like me. I'm me. They are them. If an officer sees them when he sees me that's a problem.

I agree with this. You should be seen as you, not as the criminals the officer has dealt with in the past.

And that makes me and others more likely to see those guys in the white hoods when we see them. And that's a problem too. But I can't say the person reacting to the problem is wrong without first addressing the problem they're reacting to.

You think he has to not judge you based your skin but that you can judge him based on his skin and uniform? I know you like to think its not a double standard when you do it, but it is.

This idea that someone COULD be doing something threatening is being taken to an extreme. And its based on the idea that every criminal suspect is some kind of stupid wannabe action star who can, with hands already up, reach for, pull out, and shoot 2-4 officers before any of them, who already have weapons pointed center mass, can pull the trigger.

You seriously need to research VIDEO FOOTAGE of suspects pulling out guns in real life situations. Im sorry to be rude but you really dont know what youre talking about. A suspect doesnt have to shoot FOUR officers, just ONE. You want that one to be you? The worst part is that i fully believe the police are too militant and too aggressive at the policy level. Replying to you makes me seem like i think everything is hunky dory lol

And of course when they all tell the story about the kid they had to shoot, that's exactly what happened.

And you know the inner world of police officers who have shot children because....?
You dont really know at all. Your prejudice is leading you into making sweeping generalizations about a group that you see and conceptualize as a personal enemy. But again, i understand that you dont see it as a double standard when you do it.

And when the story is repeated on the news, other people hear it and think, "yup. Those *bleeps* are crazy." This is how the stereotype gets reinforced and then new police reacting to that reinforced stereotype.

You see racism everywhere. A broken clock is right often enough that it never has to doubt that its right.

And it goes both ways. Police get stereotyped too and so a suspect has to then think, what's the best way to survive the encounter. Is it to run? Is it to shoot? Or is it to cooperate when he or she might still get killed.

This was the comment that pissed me off the most, lol. Like honest average non criminal citizens are running around with guns and are going to shoot police over some traffic stop because they are otherwise good guys who are afraid of racism. Honestly, this is total utter BS.

This is how you deal with police, no matter what color you are. First of all, if youre breaking the law you need to realize that theyre doing the right thing when they arrest you. PERIOD. They are right and you are wrong. Everything that happens has to be understood from this context: if youre a criminal, they are right and you are wrong. If they find you, give yourself up. Dont argue. Dont run. Dont fight. Dont pull your arm back when they go to cuff you. Accept the fact that they have already won and obey all of their commands.

If youre not breaking the law then you still need to realize that they are doing their job and they are the ones in charge. I tend to take it personal when police bother me without a reason (which they have, many times) but really, dont take it personal. Dont tell yourself theyre picking on you because youre black or any other personal reason, theyre probably not. No matter what the reason is, theyre going to win. Dont argue. Dont run and dont fight. Be respectful and obey their commands. Get over this idea that they work for you or are your public servant. They work for the state and are allowed to kill you if you seem dangerous to them. This is true whatever color you are.

Their job is to arrest suspects to be tried by the judicial system. The fact they manage to do this more often if you don't look like me, says something.

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

OB1Shinobi wrote:
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf

But i also found this one, which supports the opposite conclusion.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

ZealotX wrote: .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKd_7QL-q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8G7MtRNlk

—-

Implicit bias, micro-aggressions, cultural appropriation, and white privilege are all activist-generated thought-viruses deliberately intended to exacerbate existing resentment between racial groups. The flaw with these ideas is not that they are wholly inaccurate: its that they are partially accurate, intellectual weapons. They are PSYOP weapons in a culture war. Their purpose is not to edify, clarify, or reconcile: it is to incite further division and resentment among us. I can go through the list and explain all of them but since this post was on implicit bias....


First, lets do an article:
From The Chronicle of Higher Education.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308926636_A_Meta-Analysis_of_Change_in_Implicit_Bias

That link takes you to the abstract where you can request the full study if you want (i have, but i dont know of i will get it or how long it will take) and underneath the abstract is a roster of OTHER relevant studies which support and bolster the general conclusions.

And heres one more study, this one you can read in full:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frederick_Oswald/publication/239732934_Predicting_Ethnic_and_Racial_Discrimination_A_Meta-Analysis_of_IAT_Criterion_Studies/links/0a85e53a9a75e2ec00000000.pdf

The gist of all of these studies is that IAT looks like junk science. It has no predictive power and whatever it might be measuring doesnt seem to be correlate-able with actual behavior.

Of course, here is where we have to exercise the old “nuance” muscles. The basic idea of implicit bias seems to me something that hits on some real phenomenon and i presume it we could something useful, if not with the IAT itself then at least with the general idea. Even the IAT may become useful if it is better developed. On that note, problem isnt really with the IAT - even at the time of its creation, at least one of the authors acknowledged that it wasnt developed enough to be applied in any real-life context. The PROBLEM is that activists took the IAT and ran with it before the research community could turn it into something with real substance. As it stands, its main functions are to provide a non-falsifiable rationale for claiming racism when no evidence of racism is present and to reinforce the victim/oppressor narrative into the minds of the general population.

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

On a whim, i went through the lists of unarmed people killed by police for the last three years and tallied up their races.

In 2019, 35 unarmed people have been shot by police up to this day. 14 were white, 8 were black, 5 were counted hispanic, 3 were Asian, and 5 were listed as unknown. The names of the unknown were: Melvin Watkins, Channara Tom Pheap (male), Chad Michael Breinholt, Riley Eugene Peay, and David Ingle.

47 unarmed people were shot in 2018
23 white, 18 black, 6 hispanic/latino/a

69 unarmed people were shot in 2017
31 white, 21 black, 13 hispanic/latino/a, 1 asian, 1 unknown, 1 native american, and 1 arab/middle eastern
I didnt look up the unknown for 2017 because there was only one.

Society has decided that we are so scared of guns that we need more guns and so anyone can get a gun; which includes criminals and mentally disturbed individuals. Some people came home from service with PTSD and in reality THEY shouldn't have guns either. So yes, guns don't kill people, people do. HOWEVER, if you fail to control guns from getting into the wrong hands then that's also a people problem. If I'm in car and someone shoots someone and jumps in my car I'm probably on the hook for that murder too. But if I sell you a gun and don't care what you do with it I have no legal responsibility. Imagine if selling a gun meant that you had to share legal responsibility for what the person you sold it to did with it... wouldn't there be fewer situations like this? If you sell a person drugs you can go to jail because we've decided that drugs are dangerous. And if that person overdoses and dies you can be charged, I believe, with their death. But you can sell a gun and simply wash your hands of it.

"you should have ate crayons and finger painted with doodoo, lol. I agree with his basic sentiment: if your mental health issue drives you to murdering people, eh, youre a murderer. Id rather see the murderer killed than his victims killed."

But what if you replace his crayons with a gun? And what if he's not a murderer when you kill him? We're basically killing him because he could be a murderer and we don't know. We're assuming he will because we're scared of him. Most animals, even large ones, will attack a human if they are sufficiently scared and concerned for their own safety or the safety of another animal they're protecting. So under the wrong circumstances crayons and doodoo can "present" as something very dangerous. It's just that they don't feel threatened while they're painting with doodoo.

Harambe was a classic case (even though yes I'm comparing an animal to a person). They shot him because they didn't know what he would do and they were afraid and assumed he would hurt the child who had fallen in his pen. It wasn't his fault the child fell. And it wasn't his choice to be a display for human children to see. Maybe he would have protected the child and tried to help. But people couldn't take that risk. I think that's how cops generally treat situations with people with mental health issues. If the person seems out of control, they get scared. But we're also, as a society, contributing to the position that person is in and by extension the situation that person creates.

"This last bit makes me wonder if you actually did watch the video. The guy screaming "thats my momma" was not the guy with the gun."

I did. It was actually an article that said that the voice was another unidentified man. Had I read that part my response would have been different. That's what made me think there was a mental health issue. Without that, then I would have to withdraw my previous reasoning. And I agree with you about how the officer handled the situation. If the guy was at least talking then it gives you more, psychologically, to work with. I know its asking a lot to want officers to know some psychology but since its a matter of life and death... I kind of want them to.

Same! The irony is they also think they are "harder" because they do something stupidly extreme lol not fully understanding the only reason theyre jumping the gun is because theyre afraid theyll get their a$$ beat.

yeah, exactly. That's why I, even though guns are fun to shoot, I don't like the idea of them really. Because its too easy to kill someone. And I wish it wasn't that easy to kill someone. I think its kind of like money. If money is harder to get people tend to appreciate it more and hold on to it better and make wiser decisions with it. If its easy to get they get reckless and take it for granted. It's cheap and they treat it like they themselves are just as cheap. But yes, one of my favorite quotes is one from Dune, "fear is the mind killer".

You dont actually know a person is unarmed until theyve been restrained and searched.

I agree. That's true. Hindsight is 20/20 but I think its good to look at these things and think about what you might have done differently. In the case of the man on the bus, I think they should check people for weapons while they're unconscious. In both cases, I BELIEVE, that if they weren't questioned about weapons they would not have fired. If you disagree that's okay. But I think this is what's happening. People usually carry guns because they're afraid of guns being used on them. I think it helps to add to a certain paranoia and when you combine drugs into the mix then that paranoia is multiplied x3.

I had an old friend that I took care of for awhile because he was homeless and he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia after spending time in jail where he most likely was introduced to drugs. He was not the same when he got out and seeing how he acted around people, he could go off at any minute and get upset. People on drugs are not your normal average criminals and they, imo, have to be handled differently. And part of it, honestly, a lot of people get it into their heads that they're "not going back." You know what that means, right? If they believe they're going to get arrested it triggers that fight or flight response because for some, that arrest feels like a death sentence or worse. So they know, that once this officer pats them down, they're going to then find out that the gun isn't legal.

While officers should check for weapons for safety you also have the issue of officers looking for reasons to bust people. And when an officer goes from talking to you to trying to find out if you're carrying, that could trigger suspicions that the officer is looking for evidence to use against you. You and I might look at the video and say, no, the officer was acting properly although I don't know why he picked that moment to check for weapons. He was fine before and no one seemed threatened. But if the guy had priors, he knew all that was going to come up if the officers ran his id and they would definitely do that if they found a gun on him. So then for him it was a life or death struggle before the officer understood that's what he was triggering.

So even though it may sound like I'm defending the person in the wrong, I think SOP needs work. Standard procedure should, if a person is incapacitated, check for weapons so that EMTs and whoever else is there is safe. If you're questioning a guy you need to let him know early on that he's not a suspect and not in trouble. If he is a suspect or is in trouble then your gun needs to be drawn but aimed at a 30-60 degree angle and the suspect need to get their hands in the air.

The problem is that he was asked a question which had a triggering potential and wasn't prepared for the reaction. Because what people often hear is more than what the officer thinks he's saying. What they hear is "I'm about to arrest you and ruin your life over this. Feel free to cooperate while I bend you over and spread your legs." Officers often use terms like buddy and in an instant they're very much not your friend. And because it can turn on a dime I think you have to be careful not to trigger people if you can avoid it. And you do that by giving them the information they need to feel safe. Neither of those guys felt safe. And the guy who shot himself afterwards is just evidence of how he made a rash instinctive move because he probably knew he was in trouble. I think even temporary insanity could apply in some of these cases.

Part of the problem is the relationship between the police and the community. Some of these people are repeat offenders so they know the system. They may have been screwed over by the system several times before. We don't know their history; neither does the officer at the scene. I think the reality is that everyone wants to go home alive. And if the officer's job sometimes involves detaining people and keeping them from going home for a long time then that prospect is worth risking their lives (or perhaps even suicide by cop) to escape from. So I think we need gun reform, criminal justice reform, legalization of marijuana, etc. so that people stop thinking its the end of the world if an officer detains them. I would maybe even consider not arresting people at the scene anymore unless there's physical violence and let them report to their hearing on their own or report to jail before issuing an arrest warrant. The system goes way overboard on jail. I can tell you that for sure. Most crimes should honestly just be a predetermined fine and a hearing only if you choose to fight it. Jail does little but harden criminals and make them more likely to re-offend. If the officers in these concealed weapon videos said "hey I'm sorry but I gotta write you a ticket. If you pass a drug test you can easily get out of it though." there's a good chance no one would have died. It may be a stretch but I can feel their fear.

Not in the mood to comment on this atm but i want to submit it into the discussion while i have it on hand.
https://www.youtube.comf/watch?v=a2r5zMQEhbI

........................