Racist Police Response to Ferguson Protests

[Vlad n U 2]

See you in 6 months.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by YBORCITY

You know one last thing about this post. I would have loved to have a day off to protest something but unfortunately I had to go to work.... these protesters who I'll go out on a limb and say most AREN'T gainfully employed needs to ne taken care from shmucks like me.... so I feel real bad as to how they were treated.

That kind of dismissive attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country. You simply don't care what happens to those marchers, nor do you care what happened to Mike Brown or Eric Garner.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[BVS]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

That kind of dismissive attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country. You simply don't care what happens to those marchers, nor do you care what happened to Mike Brown or Eric Garner.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This has to stop being a black and white, right or left, either/or issue.

Most of the outspoken have it completely wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by BVS

This has to stop being a black and white, right or left, either/or issue.

Most of the outspoken have it completely wrong.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

This is a black and white issue. The police in this country are racist, tons of statistics show this. Look at the NYPD statistics on policies such as stop and frisk for example. Not all of cops are racist, but when good cops don't stand up to racism and bad behavior in their department, then they're complicit. Look at the report that was just issued about the Cleveland Police Department. There is a reason why black people are so upset across this nation. And they're upset for a very good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[YBORCITY]

I don't mean to come off as dismissive, I agree with you that what happened to these young men was wrong, in both cases but I disagree totally with you about cops jobs. It is thankless beyond belief, but maybe because I have a lot of friends who are retired cops/ detectives. To hear there side of things are unbelievable. And as for my statement earlier about having to deal with the worst of society I meant with all my heart, all these guys are screwed up. Didn't mean to offend or come off as flip.

See you Vlad

[KhanadaRhodes]

where does it start? if i get pulled over for speeding, i'm now dealing with a police officer. does this make me scum of the earth? or does it have to be a felony? is a schizophrenic homeless person (and iraq vet) arrested for loitering scum? what about a black man suspected of robbery arrested for "resisting arrest" when he tried to ask officers why they had a gun pointed in his face and screaming at him to put his hands up?

the fact that criminals are seen (by many, i'm not targeting you here) as the scum of the earth is a bleak representation of our society today. it's not about trying to rehabilitate those who commit a crime or anything, but more about seeing them like vermin who have been successfully caught by an exterminator.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

it's not about trying to rehabilitate those who commit a crime or anything, but more about seeing them like vermin who have been successfully caught by an exterminator.

That and in my experience it doesn't seem like enough people want to examine the exact conditions that may have had a substantial influence on the criminal and their actions.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

What it seemed like bigjohn was doing was trying to justify the actions of the police in cases such as Eric Garner and Mike Brown, by using this recent shooting as an example of why we need over zealous policing.

Well I don't know how you came up with all that from my statement, but whatever.

Originally Posted by nbelcik

We already see right wing provocateurs trying to blame the shooting on the protestors that are fighting against police brutality. That's what I have a problem with.

Right, because there weren't ANY "provocateurs" on the other side.

Let me ask you this, and try not to dodge the question too much:

Do you have a problem with groups (and yes I know this was not ALL of them) of protestors chanting they want dead cops NOW? You don't think there is at least some level of responsibility there for what happened?


Oh yeah and BTW, it looks like another officer was shot and killed in Florida today. Nope, not dangerous at all........

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

Do you have a problem with groups (and yes I know this was not ALL of them) of protestors chanting they want dead cops NOW? You don't think there is at least some level of responsibility there for what happened?

There's a difference between random people shouting on a street corner (most protestors weren't saying kill all cops, most protestors were peaceful, albeit understandably angry) and the head of the policemen's union in New York saying that De Blasio has blood on his hands because De Blasio spoke frankly about his son's experience with police racism. It's a problem when people can't speak out about the well-documented problem of racism within the NYPD without being labeled the equivalent of a cop killer.

Yes, there's provocateurs on both sides, the difference is on the right wing side it's people with actual power and influence. Diss Al Sharpton all you want, but he immediately came out and denounced the murders of those cops. Same with the family of Eric Garner. Meanwhile on the right, you have many people blaming Brown and Garner for their deaths and saying they're happy that a couple "thugs" are gone. That's not okay.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

Oh yeah and BTW, it looks like another officer was shot and killed in Florida today. Nope, not dangerous at all........

convenience store/gas station attendants are killed every day?

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

That and in my experience it doesn't seem like enough people want to examine the exact conditions that may have had a substantial influence on the criminal and their actions.

exactly. most people who turn to crime do not do so because they want to and even if they were rich, they'd do it anyway. it's out of desperation. yes some steal just for the thrill of it or because they can, but regardless of the reason, the emphasis is in the wrong place in america. it shouldn't be about providing the harshest punishment possible, usually meaning long prison sentences (that almost never get carried out in full because of, hehe wait for it...prison overcrowding) and hefty fines. it should be about determining what drove a person to commit said felony and rehabilitating them. if a person has been a criminal their entire adolescence and young life, provide them with training to take up a trade. and for god's sake, make it possible for them to get a job after being released. a big part of the problem is that these guys get released and cannot find jobs. what good is it to dump them in a situation that's impossible to get out of? what good is it for a person to forever have to pay the consequences of a possible dumb mistake made when they were 19, that even when they're 50 they still have to check that "yes" box on job applications when asked if they're a convicted felon.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

exactly. most people who turn to crime do not do so because they want to and even if they were rich, they'd do it anyway. it's out of desperation. yes some steal just for the thrill of it or because they can, but regardless of the reason, the emphasis is in the wrong place in america. it shouldn't be about providing the harshest punishment possible, usually meaning long prison sentences (that almost never get carried out in full because of, hehe wait for it...prison overcrowding) and hefty fines. it should be about determining what drove a person to commit said felony and rehabilitating them. if a person has been a criminal their entire adolescence and young life, provide them with training to take up a trade. and for god's sake, make it possible for them to get a job after being released. a big part of the problem is that these guys get released and cannot find jobs. what good is it to dump them in a situation that's impossible to get out of? what good is it for a person to forever have to pay the consequences of a possible dumb mistake made when they were 19, that even when they're 50 they still have to check that "yes" box on job applications when asked if they're a convicted felon.

Thank you for writing this. Too often the focus in our criminal justice system is simply punishment, which does no good to anyone. We need to rehabilitate people and fix the horrible socio-economic conditions in our country that cause people to turn to crime. Instead over the past 40 years we've turned our country into a police state that disproportionately targets the poor and minorities. I'm glad that we're starting to see a movement that pushes back against that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[YBORCITY]

Apologies to nbelcik and VLADU2 and whomever else I offended - I was a bit "in the weeds" when I posted here last night.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by KhanadaRhodes

what about a black man suspected of robbery arrested for "resisting arrest" when he tried to ask officers why they had a gun pointed in his face and screaming at him to put his hands up?

So what are police supposed to do when they encounter someone (thats is potentially armed and dangerous) suspected of robbery? Have a back and forth dialog with the suspect, giving them the chance to either get argumentative and irate, run, and/or pull out a gun and shoot at the officers? Or do they immediately gain control of the situation by controlling the subject? Action is always better than reaction.

Or if the officers are white and the suspect is black, the officers should just let him do whatever he wants and let him control the encounter or else they are racist?

Some of you seem to base your opinions on what you see on TV and the news, and "statistics", but you really have no clue about what law enforcement is about in real world practice. But I imagine none of you have any actual law enforcement experience so i cant say I blame you.

Just like people that always say "why didn't the cops just shoot him in the leg or shoot the weapon out of his hand?" Real life isn't a cowboy western movie. Police are trained when faced with a deadly force situation to shoot center mass until the threat is stopped.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

So what are police supposed to do when they encounter someone (thats is potentially armed and dangerous) suspected of robbery? Have a back and forth dialog with the suspect, giving them the chance to either get argumentative and irate, run, and/or pull out a gun and shoot at the officers? Or do they immediately gain control of the situation by controlling the subject? Action is always better than reaction.

Or if the officers are white and the suspect is black, the officers should just let him do whatever he wants and let him control the encounter or else they are racist?

Some of you seem to base your opinions on what you see on TV and the news, and "statistics", but you really have no clue about what law enforcement is about in real world practice. But I imagine none of you have any actual law enforcement experience so i cant say I blame you.

Just like people that always say "why didn't the cops just shoot him in the leg or shoot the weapon out of his hand?" Real life isn't a cowboy western movie. Police are trained when faced with a deadly force situation to shoot center mass until the threat is stopped.

Look at the Tamir Rice shooting, when the police pulled up to confront him they pulled up literally right next to him. If they thought he had a gun, why are they pulling up directly next to him and putting themselves in harm's way? There was a shooting of an unarmed person in the stairwell of a building in New York City by an officer, the guy wasn't doing anything but still ended up getting shot. The report about the Cleveland Police that just came out shows that cops often escalate the situation and make things more dangerous for themselves. They also use excessive force unnecessarily.

There's plenty of things that can be done during training to prevent tragedies from happening. Changing the mentality of the police can also help, they're not soldiers occupying a foreign land, they're citizens serving their community. Too many police see themselves as occupying forces.

Also, the shooting the leg thing is just plain stupid. I hate when people bring that up, because you're right, it is stupid. I understand you have to aim for center of mass. But the overwhelming priority should be avoiding the use of lethal force in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bigjohn2441]

Most departments i imagine have some use of force continuum model that they train by. Generally the model says that the officer should act according to the suspects actions and use the minimum level of force to control the situation. Something like this:

Suspect
1) compliant
2) passively resisting - resisting in a way that is not physical
3) actively resisting - physical resistance that isn't assaultive
4) assaultive - throwing a punch or kick etc
5) deadly force

Officer
1) officer presence / verbal commands
2) verbal commands, "come along" holds
3) pepper spray, takedowns, pressure points, taser
4) baton, punches, kicks, any self defense
5) firearm, any means necessary to stop deadly force


There are factors that would make a cop start out higher on the continuum, such as prior info that a suspect is armed and dangerous, or they roll up on someone that is enraged, etc.

That being said, I'll agree that there are plenty of hothead cops that start out too high, or escalate the situation when not necessary. On the other hand, plenty of times a cop starts out low and the suspect is the one that escalates it unnecessarily.

like you say, it all comes down to training.

[bigjohn2441]

Originally Posted by nbelcik

There was a shooting of an unarmed person in the stairwell of a building in New York City by an officer, the guy wasn't doing anything but still ended up getting shot.

I seriously doubt he got shot for doing nothing, something had to escalate it.

This brings up another point that, like the shooting the leg thing, is a common misconception and that is that if an officer shoots an "unarmed" person that he his somehow automatically in the wrong.

There is no way for a cop to know the full capabilities of someone they are dealing with. There are plenty of strong, skilled people that could easily kill someone with their bare hands. Also, think about this, the person may be unarmed but the COP isn't. This works for and against the cop. If a cop gets in a fight with someone, all it takes is 1 good punch and the officer could be out cold, and his pistol for the taking. Also, what if the cop is fighting with someone and he knows he only has 5 seconds left before physical exhaustion sets in?


Let's say theres a 5'10" 150 lbs cop that just responded to a murder and the suspect who is 6'5 250 lbs and was still there and he walks towards the cop clenching his fists saying "I'm gonna kill you too!" The cop draws and orders him to stop or he'll shoot. The suspect is still coming and is 10 feet from the cop. What does the cop do? Run away and let the murderer get away, or shoot?

Also, believe it or not teasers and pepper spray do not work on everyone, and if a physical confrontation goes on too long, the officer may have no other choice.

[bono_212]

Not advocating police brutality, but the tone of the previous page towards your average police officer was really disturbing. Most of my family works in the service industry and their lives are constantly affected by it.

As was mentioned, not quite so gracefully, by YBORCITY, it's not just fatalities that are an issue in the field.

I realize these situations are horrible, but I hate the idea, as well, that what police officers do for us, in general, is some kind of no big deal thing, either.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by YBORCITY

So your just going by "fatalities."?

You're not going to count the percentage of suicides, divorce rate, mentally burned out in 5-10 years because your dealing with scum of a population every single day. Or the fact that the very next traffic stop maybe the last moments you have on earth.... so...yeah policing is an extremely easy job.

To be honest, I don't think police officers make it even in the top 10 of many of those lists. For sure they are not in the top 10 of suicides (maybe not even in top 20). I am fairly certain that lawyers, doctors, dentists are all worse off in essentially every category.

Not to say police officers have a stress-free living, but the statistics simply do not bear out what I think the public assumes with respect to this profession.

[nbelcik]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

I seriously doubt he got shot for doing nothing, something had to escalate it.

This brings up another point that, like the shooting the leg thing, is a common misconception and that is that if an officer shoots an "unarmed" person that he his somehow automatically in the wrong.

There is no way for a cop to know the full capabilities of someone they are dealing with. There are plenty of strong, skilled people that could easily kill someone with their bare hands. Also, think about this, the person may be unarmed but the COP isn't. This works for and against the cop. If a cop gets in a fight with someone, all it takes is 1 good punch and the officer could be out cold, and his pistol for the taking. Also, what if the cop is fighting with someone and he knows he only has 5 seconds left before physical exhaustion sets in?


Let's say theres a 5'10" 150 lbs cop that just responded to a murder and the suspect who is 6'5 250 lbs and was still there and he walks towards the cop clenching his fists saying "I'm gonna kill you too!" The cop draws and orders him to stop or he'll shoot. The suspect is still coming and is 10 feet from the cop. What does the cop do? Run away and let the murderer get away, or shoot?

Also, believe it or not teasers and pepper spray do not work on everyone, and if a physical confrontation goes on too long, the officer may have no other choice.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6199428 The rookie police officer "accidentally" shot him. No escalation at all.

You're going into hypothetical situations where force may or may not be justified. But the cops need to to avoid using lethal force in situations where lethal force isn't justified. Too many cops move immediately to lethal force, even in cases when lethal force isn't justified.

Obviously one of the problems is police using excessive force, but what people are really upset about is the fact that cops are never held responsible for the murders of unarmed people. John Crawford, Eric Garner, the unarmed black man in Milwaukie, cops gunned these people down and faced no consequences. Darren Wilson's key witness was found to have completely made up her testimony and the prosecutor knew she was making it up. Yet, they still let her testify and Wilson wasn't indicted in a case that clearly required an indictment. The people who murder cops face the consequences, and rightly so. But cops face no consequences. The people protesting don't want the police to be abolished, they want better policing and a police force that respects citizens rather than treating them like "scum."



Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by bigjohn2441

I seriously doubt he got shot for doing nothing, something had to escalate it.

This brings up another point that, like the shooting the leg thing, is a common misconception and that is that if an officer shoots an "unarmed" person that he his somehow automatically in the wrong.

There is no way for a cop to know the full capabilities of someone they are dealing with. There are plenty of strong, skilled people that could easily kill someone with their bare hands. Also, think about this, the person may be unarmed but the COP isn't. This works for and against the cop. If a cop gets in a fight with someone, all it takes is 1 good punch and the officer could be out cold, and his pistol for the taking. Also, what if the cop is fighting with someone and he knows he only has 5 seconds left before physical exhaustion sets in?


Let's say theres a 5'10" 150 lbs cop that just responded to a murder and the suspect who is 6'5 250 lbs and was still there and he walks towards the cop clenching his fists saying "I'm gonna kill you too!" The cop draws and orders him to stop or he'll shoot. The suspect is still coming and is 10 feet from the cop. What does the cop do? Run away and let the murderer get away, or shoot?

Also, believe it or not teasers and pepper spray do not work on everyone, and if a physical confrontation goes on too long, the officer may have no other choice.

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you:

Your grandpa is standing outside a mart, possibly selling individual cigarettes. He is non-violent, non-confrontational, and non-threatening. Cops arrive to arrest him, and one of the cops uses an illegal choke hold to subdue him, a choke hold that the coroner determines was enough of a contributing factor in your grandpa's death that the cause of death is listed as homicide.

Would you be justifiably upset if the grand jury refused to press charges against a cop who contributed to your grandpa's death with the use of an illegal choke hold?