Derek Chauvin Trial

I don't think it's ever good to rush to judgement but in this case we actually witnessed a human being get murdered. As usual, there are many who want to give the benefit of even the slightest doubt to the officer as if they are all heroes all the time or because they can empathize with whatever danger they feel officers are in. However, in this case, there's no blue wall making that case.

I've seen more of the video now leading up to the knee on the neck. What bothers me is that officers are often given empathy because they're in scary situations, but that's their job and they could find a new line of work if they didn't want to be in those situations. So the idea that they have no choice because its their job simply isn't true. But if a human being is pulled over by an officer they have no real choice to be in that situation. The officer is the only one who has legal right to be in control and the only one who seems to be legally protected from assault.

I say seems to be because officers aren't allowed to use force whenever they feel like it. But knowing this, they will often say the person was resisting. And it used to simply be their word against that of the victim. Now it's different because we have cameras and they have to wear cameras too and even though they know their actions are recorded, even still... they don't act like it because they appear to be culturally bred to feel entitled to abuse their power.

My gut instinct is to say "They're stupid" to do this on camera but they reality is they think it's right and may only realize it may have looked bad after the fact. This idea of power and control is a universal problem. Power offers the temptation of how to use it. For good? Or for evil? People's characters are exposed in these choices. While it makes for a nice story to think that all cops and soldiers are "the good guys", often they simply seek the power given to officers and soldiers.

The real question is, with all that we have seen caught ON camera, we are only left to our imagination to consider what happened for hundreds of years where there was no camera and no one cared how police did their jobs as long as they all felt safe.

But minorities didn't feel safe.

Floyd had no idea he was going to be choked to death but he foresaw a strong possibility that he would not survive this encounter. You could even speculate to say his fear of the cops was much greater than their fear of him and that's why he was acting somewhat irrationally about how to comply. He pleaded with him not to shoot him because, and I didn't know this before, he had already been shot by the police prior to this.

Are the trained officers the only ones allowed to be afraid in these situations? It doesn't seem fair. Part of the reason black people fear these situations is because police often do get away with murder and when they know they can get away with it they are not going to be as fearful of the consequences because there are none. And they know that they can count on their fellow officers to protect them in the same way a gang of criminals does. And often in many of these cases they lie for each other and even plant evidence. It's hard to believe they would go so far to attack and maybe even kill a stranger but their capacity to do this was already inside them. And when they take that "us vs them" attitude it is amazing at what they can justify.

And people talk about training. But if you train a serial killer how to better protect themselves against their victims, you're simply making them a better serial killer. And why wouldn't a serial killer want to be a cop? It's the perfect job for them. They can kill people and have people on multiple levels of law enforcement protect them.

And many people think it's enough of an excuse to say Floyd was on drugs. However, I watched the testimony of his girlfriend. He wasn't on drugs because of some error in his moral character and therefore he was a "bad guy". This is one of the reasons black people do have a good reason to be afraid of the police. Because unless you're squeaky clean they can twist whatever they can find in your life to murder your name after they murder you. Just like many people Floyd and his girlfriend were on legal medication. But then they got hooked and often when the body gets used to a drug it becomes less and less effective. So what starts as a medical issues of pain management turns into something its hard to get help for. And because it is so demonized by the law people know that if they get caught with the very thing that's keeping them from torturous pain, will land them behind bars. And when that happens, it's not the drugs stealing their lives away. It's the law and law enforcement.

And if you look a certain way the law is more likely going to be enforced on you than someone else. And it raises the chance you may get executed because it plays a role in the calculus that no one (important) will miss you.

George Floyd was a real person. He was athletic and he would sometimes play basketball with neighborhood kids. I've done the same thing. And I'm not squeaky clean either. And the likelihood that anyone in Floyd's care manufactured a fake bill is extremely low. So it's like he was just as much a victim of forgery as the store he tried to give it to. None of this was anything to be killed over and from the beginning that's what George told them he was afraid of and vocalizing that fear didn't matter because it happened anyway. Telling them he wasn't that kind of person and that he wasn't resisting; nothing he said really mattered because he wasn't perfectly obedient with what they were trying to do. Because he didn't know what they were trying to do and he was terrified for his life; obviously for good reason.

And if he wasn't wrong and if his fear wasn't justified, then why is he gone now?

Unfortunately, I don't see Chauvin facing the punishment he ought to, nor do I see the other officers present on the scene facing the punishment they ought to. The focus of the public has been on Chauvin himself, but there were multiple officers present who participated in Floyd's death and, at best, did nothing to save the man. Even while people looking on urged the police to stop their barbarous actions, these cops did nothing. I'm not sure whether or not Chauvin will face any real punishment -- that's up to a jury to decide -- but in similar cases prior to this one many cops have gotten away with their murders scot-free. The whole situation is deeply troubling.

I've been in similar pins to what Floyd was subjected to (though not for nearly as long). It's certainly not comfortable, and if someone is under the influence of a drug or is otherwise in a condition where their health is already at risk it is certainly excessive. What's even more stunning is that Chauvin continued his pin even after it was clear that Floyd required medical attention, and even after others failed to find a pulse in Floyd. That was clearly excessive and completely uncalled for. Submitting a violent person is not excessively difficult; anyone with 6 months of jujitsu classes could subdue almost anyone alive, without causing major or lasting injury, without putting anyone at risk of death, and it doesn't require a crowd of 4+ police officers to do so either. You know what happens when a normal person (not a cop) puts someone in a strangle-hold after they've already passed out and their pulse has stopped? They're immediately kicked out of whatever gym or sport they're part of at the very least, and in most cases they're convicted as murderers, no questions asked. It doesn't matter if the person they strangled was high or not. Clear applications of excessive force are clearly excessive. We don't say "oh they were scared" or give them any other excuses.

The "us vs them" mentality is a major issue. In psychology and sociology, there is something called the minimal group paradigm: that even a minor difference between two groups (i.e. different clothing choices) decreases empathy between members of different groups and increases in-group favoritism. We see this clearly in the "blue lives matter" crowd. Put a bunch of people in costumes, hand them weapons, give them the power of life or death over others, have the public call them heroes, and you have done nothing other than created a special group which favors itself over all others. Their job literally involves being suspicious of everyone outside of their group. Even worse, it is a group which seems immune to punishment for their actions and to whom the rules do not seem to apply at all. With the research I've seen on in-group favoritism and lack of empathy for out-group members, this seems like a recipe for disaster.

Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely. Specialists trained in working with addicts, the mentally ill, and those in poverty are a necessity which we are gravely lacking. Police? Not so much. As you pointed out, it is a career that seems best suited for people who wish to murder. In my life I have yet to discover a single legitimate place for police, and I have yet to see a police officer perform a necessary action which could not be better performed by someone else. Home break-ins? Assaults? Robbery? Grand theft auto? Rape? Murder? Police are not magicians; they cannot possibly show up to a place where people are in danger fast enough to make a real difference, and in cases where hundreds of people are at risk (e.g. mass shootings and terrorist threats) I would think the national guard would be a more appropriate presence than cops. Best they can do in the vast majority of cases is fill out some paperwork or make use of the information-gathering tools which anyone could use, but which the state chooses to give to them specifically. It doesn't take a genius to gather fingerprints or run a DNA test when the relevant technology is made available to them, but police are the ones who have been handed easy access to that technology. From my experience, they most often steal from the poor for petty reasons with their ridiculous ticketing system and do little to nothing of benefit to anyone. I do not think that cops are "good guys" at all, and it truly does disgust me that these institutions exist anywhere in the world -- even moreso that these people are hailed as heroes.

I don't know enough about this trial to give an educated opinion.
Lots of police overreach issues are partly to blame on qualified immunity and how civil actions for deprivation of rights play out (including but not limited to Bivens remedies). There's a lot at the intersection of messed up and legal.

TheDude wrote: Submitting a violent person is not excessively difficult; anyone with 6 months of jujitsu classes could subdue almost anyone alive, without causing major or lasting injury.

Seems hyper-optimistic

TheDude wrote: Rape? Murder? Police are not magicians; they cannot possibly show up to a place where people are in danger fast enough to make a real difference...

Saying "if you're a victim in progress, sucks for you" seems horrible

TheDude wrote: and in cases where hundreds of people are at risk (e.g. mass shootings and terrorist threats) I would think the national guard would be a more appropriate presence than cops.

That seems to just incentivize the national guard being used for everything

TheDude wrote: Best they can do in the vast majority of cases is fill out some paperwork or make use of the information-gathering tools which anyone could use, but which the state chooses to give to them specifically. It doesn't take a genius to gather fingerprints or run a DNA test when the relevant technology is made available to them

When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

Rex wrote: Seems hyper-optimistic

I’ll stand by that statement. I wholeheartedly believe that anyone with a year of boxing experience would be able to win in a fight against 90% of the population based on reaction time alone, and jujitsu is better for submission. There have been numerous news stories of jujitsu practitioners stopping active crimes and being told by police not to do so.

Saying "if you're a victim in progress, sucks for you" seems horrible

There is a difference between is and ought. But let’s run a thought experiment. You’re walking down the street at 4am. The bars have closed and you’re going home. You can’t see anyone around. As you walk, someone comes out from the shadows. It’s a man with a knife. He demands you pull out your wallet and hand him all of your cash, and your credit cards. There are no police in sight. What happens? How do the police save you?

Let’s try a different thought experiment. A woman is alone in her apartment. She’s in bed. Suddenly, her door opens. A man she doesn’t know has picked the lock and is trying to rape her. He holds a gun to her head and says that if she screams she dies. What happens? How do the police save her?

That seems to just incentivize the national guard being used for everything

More than they’re used for currently. Most things? Not at all. Like I said, specialists who work with people experiencing specific problems could deal with the majority of issues.

When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

I completely disagree. I have a very low opinion of police training and general police intelligence. The average person would do fine; a trained chimpanzee could probably do just fine.

So the police officers nation wide arnt smarter than a chimpanzee?

Zero wrote: So the police officers nation wide arnt smarter than a chimpanzee?

By my estimation, not all of them!
But their overall intelligence isn’t the point, just the level of intelligence needed to complete their tasks. Many of which are unnecessary, dangerous, and detrimental to society as a whole.

TheDude wrote: I’ll stand by that statement. I wholeheartedly believe that anyone with a year of boxing experience would be able to win in a fight against 90% of the population based on reaction time alone, and jujitsu is better for submission. There have been numerous news stories of jujitsu practitioners stopping active crimes and being told by police not to do so.

Agree to disagree. That's anecdotal evidence and I remember a piece by NPR showed that training budget had no correlation to civil damages. Training cops in Jiu Jitsu is putting a band aid on a gaping accountability issue.

There is a difference between is and ought. But let’s run a thought experiment. You’re walking down the street at 4am. The bars have closed and you’re going home. You can’t see anyone around. As you walk, someone comes out from the shadows. It’s a man with a knife. He demands you pull out your wallet and hand him all of your cash, and your credit cards. There are no police in sight. What happens? How do the police save you?

You're making a comparison between the police and superheros, not the current model and your suggestion. Try the same thing without police (or Natl. Guard which is what I would imagine is the likely result). It's deterrence value: the averageresponse time in my county is ~15 minutes (for all calls not just violent ones), so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

Let’s try a different thought experiment. A woman is alone in her apartment. She’s in bed. Suddenly, her door opens. A man she doesn’t know has picked the lock and is trying to rape her. He holds a gun to her head and says that if she screams she dies. What happens? How do the police save her?

Saying the police can't unrape a victim is tasteless and horrifying

More than they’re used for currently. Most things? Not at all. Like I said, specialists who work with people experiencing specific problems could deal with the majority of issues.

That's a sharp force continuum that would incentivize natl. guard to respond to all but the most peaceful calls. Joe therapist working for the county isn't going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed so he'll call the natl. guard aggravating the current situation.

I completely disagree. I have a very low opinion of police training and general police intelligence. The average person would do fine; a trained chimpanzee could probably do just fine.

This is tangential and pejorative at best. You're conflating the stereotype you have in your mind of the type of person who is a police officer (which is a relevant but different discussion) and systemic demands. I'd appreciate it if you addressed what I said instead of trying to derail the discussion.

Rex wrote: Agree to disagree. That's anecdotal evidence and I remember a piece by NPR showed that training budget had no correlation to civil damages. Training cops in Jiu Jitsu is putting a band aid on a gaping accountability issue.

I support the complete dissolution of police, not increasing their budgets to include jujitsu training. And all evidence is anecdotal until there is enough of it. It’s simple logic though; a person’s body can only move in certain ways and submission holds exploit that fact. Even the world’s best fighters submit to easy submission holds all the time; watch any UFC. I sincerely doubt that the average person wouldn’t submit in the same way.

You're making a comparison between the police and superheros, not the current model and your suggestion. Try the same thing without police (or Natl. Guard which is what I would imagine is the likely result). It's deterrence value: the averageresponse time in my county is ~15 minutes (for all calls not just violent ones), so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

When it comes to saving your own life, I’d expect you to defend yourself rather than calling the police and waiting 15 minutes. If someone wants to escalate, police won’t be there and can’t do a thing about it. So the only possible benefit to police is deterrence.
But do they really deter? Or is that just a popular falsehood? I think a lot of people assume that deterrence works, but I don’t think that’s the case. Here in the US we have a ton of prisoners. Millions of them. Countries where cops don’t carry guns have less than us, even adjusted for population. Countries where homosexuality is punished by death still have plenty of homosexuals. If deterrence worked, do you honestly think we would continuously be stacking prisons full of people? Or is that just a clear sign that deterrence doesn’t mean a thing?
Take marijuana legalization. At one point it’s punishable by years in prison. Then it’s not. If deterrence works, one would expect use of marijuana to skyrocket in areas where it’s made legal — but it doesn’t. It really doesn’t. Deterrence made no difference whatsoever.
And if deterrence doesn’t work? And the only justification for police is deterrence? Then there is no justification for police.
I’ll also add that claiming deterrence justifies the existence of police could easily be used to justify many things. Cops with military equipment? Justified by deterrence. Cops being allowed to ransack your house? Justified by deterrence. Armed military members every 15 feet down every road in the nation? Deterrence strategy, completely justified.
But deterrence doesn’t work and even if it did it wouldn’t justify the existence of an armed group of government thugs who shake you down for your money and have a license to kill you for not doing exactly as they say when they say it, people who if you aren’t completely subservient to can kill you on a whim. It just doesn’t justify it at all.

Saying the police can't unrape a victim is tasteless and horrifying

Not only can’t they do that, they can’t do anything. The average rapist certainly doesn’t get caught after a single act of rape. All the police can really do is force the poor victim to detail every bit of the experience. The point is that in any case where someone might need protection, the police offer no protection whatsoever. You may not like it, you might think it’s distasteful, but it’s the truth.

That's a sharp force continuum that would incentivize natl. guard to respond to all but the most peaceful calls. Joe therapist working for the county isn't going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed so he'll call the natl. guard aggravating the current situation.

That’s purely anecdotal. Could just as easily say “Joe policeman working for the county isn’t going to go into a situation where he has a chance of being harmed”. Certainly it’s been the case before. Plenty of school shootings where a cop was on the scene and waited for backup while kids died.
I’m working in mental health. I know plenty of people in the field who would be willing to do the work. Happy, even. So, an anecdote for an anecdote.

This is tangential and pejorative at best. You're conflating the stereotype you have in your mind of the type of person who is a police officer (which is a relevant but different discussion) and systemic demands. I'd appreciate it if you addressed what I said instead of trying to derail the discussion.

That is the address. You claim the average person “would be insufficient for the job”. I claim that not only is the average person sufficient, but even extremely unintelligent people are sufficient, and even trained animals are sufficient. You could teach all of the necessary steps to kids in elementary school. It’s not difficult and police are not special, they are not smarter than the average person or more capable than the average person; they are indeed less smart and less capable than the average person. Luckily, no aspect of their job requires anything for which even an unintelligent person “would be insufficient for the job”. That’s my view.

NOTE: If you aren't convinced, check out this article. I found it quite illuminating:
https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confessions-of-a-former-bastard-cop-bb14d17bc759

Let’s get this thread back on topic or it will be locked. The thread was about a trial for a police officer. It’s not about raping women in the middle of the night or the national guard acting as police.

TheDude: In psychology and sociology, there is something called the minimal group paradigm: that even a minor difference between two groups (i.e. different clothing choices) decreases empathy between members of different groups and increases in-group favoritism. We see this clearly in the "blue lives matter" crowd. Put a bunch of people in costumes, hand them weapons, give them the power of life or death over others, have the public call them heroes, and you have done nothing other than created a special group which favors itself over all others.

Agreed. I think there are a lot of good cops and a lot of cops just doing their jobs and a lot of cops who simply make mistakes and many who make mistakes out of fear. I accept that there is a natural bond between cops because they expect each other to defend them in case they end up in a dangerous life-threatening situation. That being said, gangs are not nearly different enough. Gang mentality doesn't set in once one side has chosen a "color" (red, blue, yellow, etc). It sets in when one side feels supported. Their instinct becomes more violent because they feel more power and with that power, the idea that they should be in total control and if you rob them of this delusion they are threatened by it.

I think maybe it even does something positive, psychologically when some people verbally abuse police officers, even when they are getting arrested for a crime. Why? Because if you treat an officer like he's the president of the US every time he pulls someone over, then perhaps he starts to expect this from everyone, and may even feel like he's "above" while some people are "beneath" him. I think officers need to be treated as normal citizens so that they are reminded that they are normal citizens and not above the law. Responding to the police with fear may simply educate them to choose to invoke more fear so that they can get the same response.

TheDude: Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely.

I'm not down with complete abolition. I think bringing in other specialists is a must; especially mediators and officials who are trained more in health and wellbeing. Calling the police should be limited to dangerous situations where there is a suspect that needs to be arrested. In most cases, apprehension isn't necessary. Send them a ticket. If they want to dispute it, they can choose to go to court. If they dont show the ticket stands and is automatically taken from their taxes.

The only people in jail should be people who are a high risk to public safety. But certainly, if someone's on the run, you need police to chase and catch that person. If you have a mediator I would still ask police to be on the scene to support and protect the mediator. And if they disguise the act of arrest as them playing judge, jury, and executioner, then they should receive the harshest punishment because murdering someone with a badge on should be twice as bad as a regular murder.

If someone kills for drugs, that's not an excuse but at least they weren't pretending to be a hero. If someone kills out of passion at least you could say they lost control, overcome by their emotions. But what is the excuse when the person is doing a job the people in that jurisdiction are paying for? I prefer killers who have a reason. Not just, "hey I got weapons on me and several partners here to make sure I don't get killed by a suspect but I'm still going to kill the suspect anyway."

Rex: When handling evidence with any level of complexity beyond taking a picture of something, the average person would be insufficient for the job. Evidence would be tossed out via voir dire so fast (chain of custody who?)

Very true. There would have to be a lot of other changes to even consider a complete disbanding of the police force. However, one could argue that evidence is better collected, not by officers, but by CSI and when officers do it there could be a conflict of interest.

I just think police officers should either be support staff for qualified specialists or qualified specialists should be given some police training but perhaps run out of a separate organization so that there can be checks and balances. One of the problems is that it has been shown in a number of cases that police will cover for each other and they'll lie in order to justify their actions. Body cams have proven to be a necessity because of fabricated stories. I'd like to see body cams that are activated by voice commands. So as soon as the officer says "police", "hands", or has an elevated heart rate, boom, cameras automatically turn on. And that way if they don't cut on then you know the officer was not following procedure from the get go and any death that happens as a result is charged to them as if they weren't police officers at all. Because if you can't even identify yourself as an officer then the system shouldn't treat you like one.

ZealotX wrote: TheDude: Personally, I am a police abolitionist through-and-through. When protesters say "defund the police" I take it very seriously; I do not support a mere reallocation of funding, but a complete dissolution of policing entirely.

I'm not down with complete abolition. I think bringing in other specialists is a must; especially mediators and officials who are trained more in health and wellbeing. Calling the police should be limited to dangerous situations where there is a suspect that needs to be arrested. In most cases, apprehension isn't necessary. Send them a ticket. If they want to dispute it, they can choose to go to court. If they dont show the ticket stands and is automatically taken from their taxes.

The only people in jail should be people who are a high risk to public safety. But certainly, if someone's on the run, you need police to chase and catch that person. If you have a mediator I would still ask police to be on the scene to support and protect the mediator. And if they disguise the act of arrest as them playing judge, jury, and executioner, then they should receive the harshest punishment because murdering someone with a badge on should be twice as bad as a regular murder.

Defunding the police does not work, it was done in many area's, crime sky rocketed. Complete dissolution of the police? that will be WAY worse. Not just in crime but I don't think people ever stop to think or realize the reality of what that will do to other agencies and businesses. Certain businesses will close and not reopen at all if there is no form of sudden intervention law enforcement. Emergency Medical Services, will no longer exist. They will not respond to calls if they can't be safe doing so. Some hospitals will likely close down too. Heavy crime area's, will just get worse. I can't even begin to fathom why people think that will be fine. Not everyone can defend themselves more so not then can. Mediators and health and wellbeing? that is a dream to think that will solve situations. I've been on scene where the most polite, most calm, most appropriate friendly person with 0 suspicion and 0 history do a 180 and physically assault you out of nowhere. I've been a victim of it. I and many along with me would quit my career as a paramedic in a heart beat. No one in their right mind would step up to take that spot either.

I've also seen some of these mental health workers at work, and just like in any career because I've been in many over my years there is always going to be people that are under-trained, or got the free ride through who shouldn't be in the spot they are compared to others in their field. That's not specific to police that's every industry out there. Someone makes your coffee better at the starbucks then others, and someone makes it terrible. To assume they are going to be any better? You are just spinning the same wheel which will have the same problems. Dissolution of the police is not going to fix anything, it will make everything worse. Revisiting training sure, revaluating officers on the regular basis, absolutely. Dissolution, that shouldn't even be considered a solution. The amount of needless deaths and violence that would occur as a result of that would be unreal.

That's why I said you need the police to be there to keep the specialists safe. The question is more like that of a lead actor vs a supporting actor. I don't want to get rid of the police at all. I want them to be the supporting actor while the lead is a specialist who specializes in that particular situation.

Drug call? Lead: EMT , Supporting: Police
Drug call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Mental health call? Lead: Mental Health professional, Support: Police
Mental health call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support: Mental Health professional
Domestic Violence call? Lead: Marriage Counselor, Support EMT
Domestic Violence call /w fear of assault? Lead: Marriage Counselor, Support: Police
Domestic VIolence call /w weapon? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Domestic Violence call /w active assault? Lead: Police, Support EMT
Traffic Violation? Lead: Traffic cop, Support: Regular cop. Traffic cops should write tickets only and not be under any quota system involving other crimes and therefore, not looking for PC. The regular cop should hang back near the police car, body cam on, and hand on weapon. If the worst that can happen on a traffic stop is a ticket then all traffic stops will be that much safer. Only if the traffic cop escalates and asks the driver to exit the vehicle should the other officer get tagged in. For example, if the driver's license is suspended or the driver is suspected of being under the influence.

Escalation 1: Roles reverse, Police Lead.
Escalation 2 (threat spotted): Police Only
De-escalation 1: Roles reverse, Police support.
De-escalation 2 (non threat): Specialist Only

Police should always be there unless there is no threat of violence determined by specialists on the scene. The specialist can fall back or tag in the police but the police should not take the lead unless the situation calls for an arrest or for a person to be physically restrained. If a person willingly hands over their license or state id there should be no need to restrain them unless they know they're going to be arrested and are a flight risk. But if they're going to get a ticket then all you need is their ID anyway and they should be free to go once the ticket is written. If the person wants to fight the ticket they can voluntarily set up a court hearing.

Because our justice system assumes every case needs a hearing it creates a situation that forces the police to make more arrests, filling the system with bodies, interrupting jobs and income, wasting the time of judges and courtroom staff who all have to be paid. I know for a fact that many people who are stuck in jails are there simply because they didn't show up for court. But that could have been avoided by not forcing every case to go to court in the first place. Even if the person is innocent, they are damaged by having to take time off work to go to court. That could take hours over a ticket that may only really be worth $50.

And part of this amounts to a secret tax on the poor because of the extra hardships that can be caused by this process. And let's not even get started on having to get a public defender, relationships between lawyers and police officers, judges, and magistrates. There's conflict of interest in a lot of cases because the magistrate knows that each case is money for the municipality, etc.

Again, cops are necessary, but not to lead or be the only ones to handle all these different types of calls. We ask too much of them and that's part of the reason why they handle calls the way they do.

We sure are asking A LOT from John Q. Citizen hu?

I think at this point in the time line, we dont need the past but the NOW. We need those who are trained in the NOW, not in the past. MY 2 cents. Police go to be trained at a Academy. Every "Training Master" or instructor is in charge of what these few selected or even volenteers are told and how to read the law. There are those who are DIRECTLY PAID to enforce the law, the Officers in the unit. Those captains and lieutenants are there not for just signing shift paper work but for INTERPITATION of the LAW. The LAW currently standing and in violation as per time present. Something to think about during this discussion, why get mad at the Cops or the volunteers when its the structure that can be mended?

What is it in their training that makes them act this way?
Remember, my 2 cents

Rex: so someone mugging me has that much of a head start. Without law enforcement, there's no reason for the perp to not escalate the situation and I would equally have no recourse besides defending myself.

I believe we need the police. However, I also believe you're more likely to get robbed at gunpoint and not with a knife because of the likelihood the mugger will have to deal with armed opposition, whether it is the victim or the police. Guns are used mainly to inspire fear for a quick transaction. If the mugger knows the police may be on their way then they know they need to wrap up the transaction quickly and now they have to consider whether the victim is a witness.

The Dude's point is that the mugger is likely gonna mug, regardless of whether or not the cops are on the way. And there's a good point there. However, you're also right that the police do provide a certain level of deterrence because criminals at least know they will have to deal with the police whether it is during or after the commission of the crime. I think that in the mugging situation, police should try to get there, and maybe drones scattered on rooftops could be activated to help find the suspect for arrest.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:
What is it in their training that makes them act this way?
Remember, my 2 cents

I believe there is fear bred into their training where they are taught that their own safety and protection is paramount to anyone else's safety; especially the suspect.

I believe they are also not trained to truly consider the crime for which a suspect is being questioned or arrested for. I believe this causes them to exaggerate the threat and allow their actions to be ruled by fear.

Also, the police need be trained by regularly carrying out arrests on each other. They need to be given imaginary crimes and even training with under cover officers they don't know so that another officer can evaluate their self control and discipline under pressure.

If a cop fails this mock arrest test then they should switch places with the officer(s) they arrested so they can show them 2 scenarios:

1. how it feels to be treated exactly the same way
2. how to do it properly so they can see the difference

All officers should be trained in wearing handcuffs for hours in the back of a police car. Some of these things that seem so simple are extremely uncomfortable and can be very painful.

There should also be some kind of belt that can go around the waist of a suspect that the handcuffs can be attached to in the front. Why? Because the behind the back position is done because officers fear the range of motion the suspect could have as far as taking an officer's weapon or even using the cuffs to strangle an officer. However, these painful holds and positions are typically unnecessary and when someone is causing you pain your body has a natural reaction to resist. And some cops will use that natural reaction in order to say the suspect was resisting and use that to justify more violence against them or even shooting.

So yes, I believe training has a lot to do with it.

Zero wrote: Let’s get this thread back on topic or it will be locked. The thread was about a trial for a police officer. It’s not about raping women in the middle of the night or the national guard acting as police.

Thank you for your concern, Zero. But please, as the OP, please allow me to determine what the thread or its continued discussion is about because I'm perfectly happy going down such lines of reasoning. In this case, we're talking about the trial and anything related to cause of the trial which is excessive force. TheDude simply offered his opinion on what could stop or cut down excessive force and that opinion deserved analysis and counter-arguments. So it's all good. Plus, I think the OP should always have an opportunity to get their own topic back on track so that they and others can continue to participate. Mods should step in if the OP is unable to regain control. That is my humble opinion. Please take it as such. Again, thank you for your concern and vigilance.

So then my question to the smart individual is why ISNT the ones who train accountable? When will ACOUNTABILITY be know instead of needing a trail? Just chatting with you Z X . I have served as "Law Enforcement " with the U.S. Coast Guard and the Us Army - and let me tell you, when there was a change to ANY LAW or any rule, we had a group of people REPRESENTIN the change to train us on the new change and to be better accountable. I see and hear next to NONE doing this in the real world.

Some times it aint fair to punish the kid for his upbringing, the same can be said for the Cops. If no one is too far from redemption then truly, we can train our own brave citizens to act better? Even organizations, Sects and faiths.
What we are taught some times matters. You know there are TONS of NON lethal ways to neutralize people, some involve foam, some include tea... some involve much more training but ... IM NOT IN CHARGE lol