The "war on police" in America

My point being that if it was an ordinary Terry stop (which by all signs it was), all he was legally obligated to do was to give out his name and he would have more than likely been on his way. [Note: The fact that he remained silent, though constitutionally correct, was not actually smart in this case since had he talked, would have made any interaction with police a lot easier.]

However, since the building in question was actually a government building, he was going to get arrested anyways, even if it was only for the intimidation factor.
 
My point being that if it was an ordinary Terry stop (which by all signs it was), all he was legally obligated to do was to give out his name and he would have more than likely been on his way. [Note: The fact that he remained silent, though constitutionally correct, was not actually smart in this case since had he talked, would have made any interaction with police a lot easier.

As @FoolKiller and I both said; we don't actually know what happened or how he acted before he started filming. Just as importantly, we don't know what "just cause" the officer claims. What we do know is that the VA statute allows for his identification on the street when officers are suspicious of him. The two seminal cases that you quote back that up.

However, since the building in question was actually a government building, he was going to get arrested anyways, even if it was only for the intimidation factor.

...which reads to me as if you accept that his location and behaviour may have been enough to arouse said suspicions.

On the face of the video alone I still concur with @FoolKiller's initial and subsequent instincts on the matter, I simply continue to caution that all may not be entirely as it appears. Certainly with a little finagling there's room for the officers to act as they did.
 
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ustody-for-ambush-of-st-louis-police-officer/

Four suspects accused in Tuesday’s ambush shooting of a St. Louis police officer are in custody, officials reported Friday.
At least one of the suspects, Dale Wolford, 24, resisted arrest and was seen bloodied and bruised as officers brought him into a precinct house.

A second suspect, Aaron Collins, 23, turned himself in accompanied by his mother.

The other two arrested were Edward Davis, 27, arrested on Wednesday and an 18-year-old who also turned himself in. The latter pair may not be charged and were apparently sitting in the back seat of the assailant’s car. They may not have had a hand directly in the shooting.
 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/22/us/california-police-officer-killed/index.html

Hours after an officer in Hayward, California, was fatally shot Wednesday during a traffic stop, police said they had arrested a suspect.
Mark Anthony Estrada, 21, is accused of gunning down Sgt. Scott Lunger, a 15-year veteran of the Bay Area department.
Estrada is hospitalized undergoing treated for gunshot wounds, but remains in custody, Hayward Police Chief Diane Urban told reporters.
Asked to describe the suspect's possible motive, Urban didn't mince words.
"There's no why," she said. "It's an absolutely senseless murder."

Lunger pulled over a vehicle he saw driving erratically shortly after 3 a.m.

"As Sgt. Lunger got out of the car and approached the driver side of the vehicle, the driver shot Sgt. Lunger without warning," Capt. Mark Koller told reporters.
Police: Cincinnati man calls 911 on self, kills responding officer
Another officer was on scene and returned fire, Koller said. The driver fled. The vehicle was later abandoned in Oakland, where it was recovered.
 
Retaliation=war in this thread..

Ever notice how they are far more cops killing civilians than civilians killing cops? Right! Because somehow that's just anecdotal whereas this passes for hard facts.:rolleyes:
 
Retaliation=war in this thread..

Ever notice how they are far more cops killing civilians than civilians killing cops? Right! Because somehow that's just anecdotal whereas this passes for hard facts.:rolleyes:
Shocking. Who would think that dealing with killers, thieves, rapists, thugs, gang members and organized crime all day long might get some of the criminals killed?
 
Shocking. Who would think that dealing with killers, thieves, rapists, thugs, gang members and organized crime all day long might get some of the criminals killed?

People who live in countries that employ very successful non-lethal means, even against those armed with guns?
 
People who live in countries that employ very successful non-lethal means, even against those armed with guns?
Do they have a prison population bigger than some entire countries? Do they have more people arrested than the population's of 2/3 of the countries of the world? Are there hundreds of millions of guns? Are Police shot at every single day?. Is a cop killed every 58 hours? There are a lot of factors involved and you can't compare statistics until you allow for the social, cultural and other differences between countries.
 
Do they have a prison population bigger than some entire countries?

Yes, but that's pretty easy to do.

Is a cop killed every 58 hours?

No, but nor are they in the US. Here's a breakdown of Malkin's 1500 cops "killed";

EDIT: A breakdown of last year's 100 cops "killed", my apologies.

Malkin Breakdown
Aircraft accident – 1
Auto Crashes – 28
Bomb-Related Incident – 1
Drowned – 2
Electrocuted – 1
Fall – 6
Job-Related Illness – 13
Motorcycle Crashes – 4
Poisoned – 1
Shot – 31
Stabbed – 2
Struck by Vehicle – 11

There are a lot of factors involved and you can't compare statistics until you allow for the social, cultural and other differences between countries.

Absolutely, it's my own view that social and cultural differences are much of the problem here.
 
Last edited:
A literal execution/assassination of a police officer at a gas station.

The suspect shot Deputy Darren H. Goforth, 47, while the deputy was fueling his patrol car, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said.The gunman walked up to Goforth from behind and opened fire for no apparent reason, said Deputy Thomas Gilliland, a spokesman for the sheriff's office. When Goforth fell to the ground, the gunman stood over him and shot him some more, Gilliland said. Goforth died at the scene. "He was literally gunned down in what appears to be an unprovoked, execution-style killing," Hickman said. "I have been in law enforcement for 45 years, I have never seen anything this cold-blooded."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/29/us/texas-sheriffs-deputy-shot-gas-station/index.html
 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/01/us/texas-abilene-police-officer-killed/index.html

The death of an off-duty officer in Texas is being treated as a homicide, police said Tuesday.
Abilene Officer Don Allen was found dead Monday inside his home in Clyde. Investigators haven't released details about the manner of death, but have described it as "clearly suspicious."
The officer's death comes days after the shooting death of a deputy in Harris County, Texas, which has sparked allegations that targeting of law enforcement officers could be on the rise. But after Allen's death, Standridge stressed that there was no "indication right now that random law enforcement personnel are being targeted."
 
If these statistics are true then the war on police rhetoric can stop. It clearly isn't happening outside of the media narrative.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-m...down_b_8072366.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

In the seventh year of Bush's presidency, there were 77 cop killings, by our definition. So far this year, Obama's seventh in office, there have been 35. Statistically speaking, we're on pace for a total of 52 in 2015, which would be the lowest total in this century.
Obviously, the goal in any year, no matter who is president, is zero. It's uncomfortable to even say "statistically speaking" when you're talking about people being brutally murdered.
But what the president says or doesn't say probably has no impact on the number of cops murdered in any given year. If it does, far less cops are being killed during Obama's presidency than during Bush's. If we're going to keep the downtrend going, we need to look at the real causes of this problem and not get distracted by those who politicize it.
 
The media is not alone in hyping the "war on police" rhetoric, yesterday Senator Ted Cruz gave a speech where he said:

Ted Cruz
Police "are under assault right now at an unprecedented level"

Link: http://www.texasobserver.org/in-houston-ted-cruz-faults-obama-for-cop-killings/

While speaking to the press after the speech, the article says that:
Cruz
that "criminal types had received marching orders from figures such as President Obama and NY City Mayor Bill de Blasio, to hunt and kill cops"

Typical campaign trail rhetoric I guess:yuck:👎
 
If these statistics are true then the war on police rhetoric can stop. It clearly isn't happening outside of the media narrative.

Interesting figures!

Typical campaign trail rhetoric I guess:yuck:👎

It's bloody irresponsible, it's clear from @FoolKiller's figures that incidences of this type of crime are falling... if anything the "War on Cops" rhetoric is more likely to cause some nutter to take his personal, misguided grievances out on LEOs.
 
Interesting figures!

It's bloody irresponsible, it's clear from @FoolKiller's figures that incidences of this type of crime are falling... if anything the "War on Cops" rhetoric is more likely to cause some nutter to take his personal, misguided grievances out on LEOs.
Why does the aggregate total of police killed in the line of duty determine if there is a virtual war on police? Why can't the war on police be a subset of the larger issue? If people are deliberately and cold bloodedly targeting police for execution, even while police deaths at the hands of criminals are falling, that's still a war on police in my books.
 
Why does the aggregate total of police killed in the line of duty determine if there is a virtual war on police? Why can't the war on police be a subset of the larger issue? If people are deliberately and cold bloodedly targeting police for execution, even while police deaths at the hands of criminals are falling, that's still a war on police in my books.

I see your point but you'd be very hard pushed to call this a "war" and thereby suggest that there's some kind of concerted feeling or mood amongst the public. Especially with incidents so few and isolated.
 
Why does the aggregate total of police killed in the line of duty determine if there is a virtual war on police?

It doesn't necessarily, but it does provide some much needed context to the situation.

Those pushing the "war on police" rhetoric would have us believe that cop killings are on the rise, and that much of that rise can be attributed to "liberal/mainstream" media pushing an agenda about police brutality and generating anger towards police over a non-existent issue.

Turns out, though, that not only are police shootings actually going down, but the shooting of civilians by police is on the rise.

These numbers are important because it shows that we do need to have a national conversation about police brutality. And going forward, anybody who tries to use the "war on police" as a smokescreen to avoid that conversation is no longer simply ignorant, they're also dishonest, and I'd say a coward as well.

Why can't the war on police be a subset of the larger issue?

What larger issue would that be?
 
It doesn't necessarily, but it does provide some much needed context to the situation.

Those pushing the "war on police" rhetoric would have us believe that cop killings are on the rise, and that much of that rise can be attributed to "liberal/mainstream" media pushing an agenda about police brutality and generating anger towards police over a non-existent issue.

Turns out, though, that not only are police shootings actually going down, but the shooting of civilians by police is on the rise.

These numbers are important because it shows that we do need to have a national conversation about police brutality. And going forward, anybody who tries to use the "war on police" as a smokescreen to avoid that conversation is no longer simply ignorant, they're also dishonest, and I'd say a coward as well.
I could easily counter that anyone who uses police shootings of civilians as a smokescreen to avoid talking about the war on police is ignorant, dishonest and a coward as well. See what I did there?

What larger issue would that be?
The larger issues is police killed by civilians. The subset would be people who deliberately target police for execution, not those who kill police officers in the commission of a crime or by attempting to evade capture.
 
I could easily counter that anyone who uses police shootings of civilians as a smokescreen to avoid talking about the war on police is ignorant, dishonest and a coward as well.

You could, if you wanted to ignore what the numbers are telling us.

See what I did there?

I do indeed see what you did there. However, I'm fairly sure that you don't.
 
If death by common criminals are dropping and increased assassinations are too small to prevent the overall number from dropping, then the "war" has more power from media talk than from actual action.


I think the larger issue that we have is that police have long been able to operate with little accountability. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have done anything wrong. What it does indicate is that now that people are finding it easier to see how police operate due to technology the people are not happy with it.

It needs to be addressed. Just yelling at each other about it solves nothing and no one wants to actually understand the other's point of view. One thing that would go a long way toward these things would be if police accepted that having the legal authority to kill at times means you should be under further scrutiny when you use it. It is an act by a public officer in the line of public duty. Every step of the investigation should be known to the public.
 
Last edited:
If death by common criminals are dropping and increased assassinations are too small to prevent the overall number from dropping, then the "war" has more power from media talk than from actual action.


I think the larger issue that we have to have is that police have long been able to operate with little accountability. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have done anything wrong. What it does indicate is that now that people are finding it easier to see how police operate due to technology the people are not happy with it.

It needs to be addressed. Just yelling at each other about it solves nothing and no one wants to actually understand the other's point of view. One thing that would go a long way toward these things would be if police accepted that having the legal authority to kill at times means you should be under further scrutiny when you use it. It is an act by a public officer in the line of public duty. Every step of the investigation should be known to the public.

Well said. I'd give you all of my likes for today, if I could. You'll have to settle for just the one, though.
 
Retaliation=war in this thread..

Ever notice how they are far more cops killing civilians than civilians killing cops? Right! Because somehow that's just anecdotal whereas this passes for hard facts.:rolleyes:
the reason why cops are killing civilians is perhaps those civilians are engaging in illegal activity or commit actions that would lead cops to believe they were in the middle of such an act or shooting at cops.
cops have an multi faceted job description i encourage you to watch paul harvey's the policeman on youtube if you would like to get a good perspective of the job description of a cop
 
the reason why cops are killing civilians is perhaps those civilians are engaging in illegal activity or commit actions that would lead cops to believe they were in the middle of such an act or shooting at cops.
cops have an multi faceted job description i encourage you to watch paul harvey's the policeman on youtube if you would like to get a good perspective of the job description of a cop

keep trying..The attitude of blaming the victim is flat offensive!
 
Last edited:
Back