The "war on police" in America

[FoolKiller]

First of all, it would've been nice to know what was muted out in the beginning of the video. Was he checking in with the someone to read the history of the license plate?

This is common in publicly released dash cam videos. Either they mute out some personal information or the audio will be turned off when the officer is not engaged with someone in order to save on storage space.

Something was probably done to make him do essentially a U-turn.

According to the media, the officer was intending to give him a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

Second, yes it would be pretty reasonable to say "I'm reaching into my car to get my license." I think I heard catering or something along those lines come out of him during the firing shots,

So it is reasonable to expect us to act as if we are afraid a cop will to just start shooting us because we did something that would be normal in any other situation? If this is the case then it is a perfect demonstration of the problem. We are now supposed to be afraid of cops. That is not how it is supposed to work.

but why didn't the cop make him sit in his car?

The man was out of his car before he realized a cop had come up on him. If you are paranoid about someone possibly being a threat to you then you don't ask them to get where they are in a more obstructed view than they already are.

Third, Ohio may be an open-carry, but your still required to have a conceal permit in a car...

The guy in the Ohio Walmart was not in his car, nor did anyone ask to see his permit before opening fire on him. Not that it matters as he only had a toy that was being sold by the store he was in.

Fourth.... I have my own views of religion, one could say Deism would follow it, but whatever... So good thing I'm not a Muslim in America..

Not sure what this is referencing. Based on location, perhaps to do with the NSA stuff?

I meant as in being pulled over for something I didn't do, or being questioned for something I never did...

I once got pulled over for a DUI because I pulled out of a bar parking lot and then changed lanes immediately after turning into my nearest lane, per as taught in driver's ed, and then merged into the lane I needed to be in to turn at the next light. When it was clear I was sober, and had only picked up friend a who had been drinking to drive him home, I was threatened with reckless driving and having my license revoked. It was cold and I unconsciously stuck my hands in my pockets. Despite feeling as though this cop was profiling college kids (something a later court case showed was a departmental problem) the officer acted rationally and politely asked me to keep my hands out of my pockets, and even apologized for having to do it in the cold.

I have anecdotes too.

Sixth. I don't know if it were a mob or not. Sometimes as cool as they can be, they can get out of hand like the one such stunt with the Best-Buy blue shirt from New York (I can't remember the name but that should be enough details for you.)

It was an organized art society fundraiser. The story clearly stated it as such. The courts cleared everyone of all charges, but they still had to pay to get their cars, that were unlawfully taken, back.

Seventh. Sorry, didn't notice but this is what I meant:

You can't compare a violent officer, be it his tone or physical actions, to someone who is unlawful, and usually resisting, and say that is corrupt.

You can if the cop is acting unlawfully, which his own police force and the district attorney believe he did. And you can have a cop that uses excessive violent that is not corrupt and you can have a very peaceful corrupt cop. Both are unlawful.

Abuse of civil asset forfeiture is a form of legally supported corruption in my mind. It pads the police budgets.

but all I'm saying is what could had of happened to him based on what happened. If you feel like I'm defending the officer, you're wrong. The road could had of twisted a different way, that's my view on it.

So, are you saying the unlawful shooting of this man was the fault of the man or the cop?




What I am ultimately taking from you is that we have to act very carefully around cops. Unfortunately, I am afraid that is accurate these days. A few months back I told my daughter I couldn't go because the light was red and it was against the law. She said, "If we break the law the police will come and shoot us, right Daddy?" She is four and my wife and I have gone out of our way to not discuss current events involving things like Michael Brown in her presence, because we wanted her to be able to trust police in case she did need them. When I was four police were friendly gentlemen who helped Curious George find his way home or stopped bank robbers.

Today a four-year-old child thinks they are someone who will come and shoot you for a traffic violation. To me, that says everything.

 

[McLaren]

You actually missed my point about knowing how to defend myself without relying on a firearm. I actually said, where everyone has guns, my nunchuk skills are useless. My point was that I can defend myself, and my family, where I live, without having to own a gun. Owning a gun might make you feel safe, or powerful, but you're kidding yourself. There are thousands of scenarios where you can't get to your gun quickly enough, or simply don't have access to one, where you will be defenceless against anyone with any kind of weapon. As you say yourself, when you don't have a gun you're vulnerable. I don't have that problem.

And what leads you to assume anyone here (or a gun owner in general) isn't the same as you?

If you own a gun, and have small children who could get a hold of it, they are not likely going to "save their lives" with it. THAT is ridiculous lol. If it's locked in a safe, and you have a home invasion, you will not get to your safe, unlock it, and get your gun out, all before an intruder has already dealt with you. The intruder, being where you live, will have their own gun, and most home invasions are done while the home's occupants are in bed asleep. You will have people already in your home when you wake up.

Why do you think it's so black & white? Not every gun owner has his gun in a safe. And not every safe is magically kept somewhere between the owner & the intruder.

Like I said. If you are against tighter gun laws because you like guns, you have a flawless argument, and I'll agree with you. I like guns too, believe it or not. I love hunting, it's great fun. But don't tell me owning guns makes you safer. That is just a bull**** argument.

Most home invasions are done in the day when you're at work; nobody home & it's easy to scope if someone is. A burglar will spend a minute looking for a way in & then 1-2 minutes looking for valuables that are out in the open. This should give you an idea that most burglars don't come in with a gun or weapon at all because they don't want to get caught or cause conflict as they don't know what the home owner has. Those that do carry weapons typically have knives.

Don't call someone's argument BS when yours is based on what Hollywood constitutes as the average home invasion. Burglars don't go into homes with giant brass balls.

 

[Mike_grpA]

And what leads you to assume anyone here (or a gun owner in general) isn't the same as you?


Why do you think it's so black & white? Not every gun owner has his gun in a safe. And not every safe is magically kept somewhere between the owner & the intruder.

Most home invasions are done in the day when you're at work; nobody home & it's easy to scope if someone is. A burglar will spend a minute looking for a way in & then 1-2 minutes looking for valuables that are out in the open. This should give you an idea that most burglars don't come in with a gun or weapon at all because they don't want to get caught or cause conflict as they don't know what the home owner has. Those that do carry weapons typically have knives.

Don't call someone's argument BS when yours is based on what Hollywood constitutes as the average home invasion. Burglars don't go into homes with giant brass balls.

Let's look at your "facts" here for a second.

If your guns aren't kept locked away in a gun safe, they are more likely to be used in accidental deaths/suicide. The safest place to have your guns is a gun safe, but that's because you aren't very likely to ever use a gun to protect yourself, statistically you're more likely to kill yourself with it.

I think you need to check your definition of home invasion. You are describing the most likely scenario of a burglary. Home invasion differs from burglary in that it occurs in an occupied home, with violent intent to the occupants.

So don't say what I'm basing my posts on when you don't actually understand the difference between a home invasion and a burglary. The argument is still bull****, and it always will be. That's why yours is the only country in the western world who has a large percentage of the population who believes it.

This has gotten too far off topic now. My original post was about the OP, and I won't be discussing this tangent any more.

 

[McLaren]

Let's look at your "facts" here for a second.

If your guns aren't kept locked away in a gun safe, they are more likely to be used in accidental deaths/suicide. The safest place to have your guns is a gun safe, but that's because you aren't very likely to ever use a gun to protect yourself, statistically you're more likely to kill yourself with it.

If your gun is out of the safe, you kill yourself. If the gun is in a safe, you'll never get to it, and when you do get it out, you kill yourself anyway.

No grey area, that's just how it is to you. Got it....

I think you need to check your definition of home invasion. You are describing the most likely scenario of a burglary. Home invasion differs from burglary in that it occurs in an occupied home, with violent intent to the occupants.

You're right, my terms are mixed. But, it doesn't change the fact you continue to paint the picture as black & white.

You actually missed my point about knowing how to defend myself without relying on a firearm. I actually said, where everyone has guns, my nunchuk skills are useless. My point was that I can defend myself, and my family, where I live, without having to own a gun. Owning a gun might make you feel safe, or powerful, but you're kidding yourself. There are thousands of scenarios where you can't get to your gun quickly enough, or simply don't have access to one, where you will be defenceless against anyone with any kind of weapon. As you say yourself, when you don't have a gun you're vulnerable. I don't have that problem.

Don't run off just yet. You forgot to share the super secret formula as to why someone with a gun can't also be the same as you. Is it the nunchuks? It's the nunchuks, isn't it?

 

[Mike_grpA]

I never said they were. You are the one making the assumption. My point was when you can defend yourself without a firearm, the only time you may need one is when someone else with a firearm wants to harm you. Take away everyone's access to semi-autos and make it actually diffiult to get anything else, and you get rid of that problem. Saying there's too many is another bull**** argument. We had a lot of guns here pre ban too. I would wager a similar per capita figure. Our buy back program worked because the laws are very harsh for people who don't give the guns up.

I also didn't say in any part of my post that everything is as black and white as you are assuming. Once again, you make assumptions about what I'm saying without actually understanding what I said. I stated what is the likeliest of scenarios, what is statistically most likely to happen. I never said that is what ALWAYS happens.

The US gun laws are stupid, and the government is to afraid to do anything about it, because they don't want to lose the votes. Your life isn't as important to the policy makers as your vote.

A good example of how stupid your gun laws are is slide stocks. Why is something that essentially makes semi-auto rifles fully auto considered legal, when fully auto rifles aren't? At what point does anyone even need a semi-auto weapon? let alone one with a slide stock, making it possible to emulate fully auto fire.

Hunting is perhaps the best use of a firearm. I can't imagine when I would have ever needed a semi auto when hunting. I'm not trying to spray a crowd of roos or deer lol.

So if you're done trying to put words in my mouth, taking me out of context, and misunderstanding my posts, I'll let this thread get back on topic. Cheers.

 

[McLaren]

I never said they were. You are the one making the assumption. My point was when you can defend yourself without a firearm, the only time you may need one is when someone else with a firearm wants to harm you. Take away everyone's access to semi-autos and make it actually diffiult to get anything else, and you get rid of that problem. Saying there's too many is another bull**** argument. We had a lot of guns here pre ban too. I would wager a similar per capita figure. Our buy back program worked because the laws are very harsh for people who don't give the guns up.

No, it doesn't. Since when does a criminal care what the law has to say about guns?

They take away people's access to drugs & other contraband, yet certain markets thrive on such items.

I also didn't say in any part of my post that everything is as black and white as you are assuming. Once again, you make assumptions about what I'm saying without actually understanding what I said. I stated what is the likeliest of scenarios, what is statistically most likely to happen. I never said that is what ALWAYS happens.

The moment I brought up that a gun owner doesn't always necessarily keep his gun in a safe (if needed against an intruder), you immediately respond that it'll likely end up killing the owner instead. Likely isn't always, but you've constantly deemed it as close enough through any scenario as if gun safety has never been taught.

According to age old statistics, it seems you're more likely to die by a hammer or a blunt object than a gun.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...hammers-and-clubs-each-year-than-with-rifles/

A good example of how stupid your gun laws are is slide stocks. Why is something that essentially makes semi-auto rifles fully auto considered legal, when fully auto rifles aren't? At what point does anyone even need a semi-auto weapon? let alone one with a slide stock, making it possible to emulate fully auto fire.

Hunting is perhaps the best use of a firearm. I can't imagine when I would have ever needed a semi auto when hunting. I'm not trying to spray a crowd of roos or deer lol.

Your logic could be applied to anything. Who needs to collect anything when the simplest form of their hobby would be sufficient. Maybe some people like collecting such weapons because they appreciate them as a tool & like firing them in controlled areas. I've shot my friend's Eagle as well as his old AK at a gun range; I can see the appeal of it as a hobby because that's what it is to some people.

It's the same thing as people who collect swords & knives. People have absolutely no use for them, but they don't buy them for practical means to begin with.

 

[Exorcet]

We have a Guns thread.

Quite right, I didn't realize how far on a tangent I had gone.

And I don't mean that not wearing a seat-belt causes accidents, but rather is a result of them.

Well, besides maybe hurrying to buckle up as you pass a cop, I don't think the seatbelt would cause many issues.

Actually you were somehow comparing having a test for driving under the influence and drunk drivers, to see if they can actually drive safely?? (I don't know, your comparison)...

You said that you don't worry about the potentially danger brought about just by driving a car because people need to pass a test to get a license. If the test takes care of most of the problems with driving, then I'd assume the same could be done with alcohol (or drugs).

If you agreed I would have gone on to ask how you determine what the safe limit is. I wanted to point out that the ban on drunk driving that most are comfortable with is pretty arbitrary, but this has been covered in the Humans Rights thread so maybe it's just better to leave it at that.

No, but it proves the point that even a tissue box can hurt you. If a tissue box is say 50 grams, and the average person weighs 50,000+ grams, the difference of plausible force is over 400 times greater. So if a tissue box is going to "hurt" you, whatever level of pain that may be, then a flying human body can kill you.

Yes, I was pointing out that the tissue box can hurt (while a hit to the back of the head may not be a big deal, if it hits your eye it might cause severe damage). Do you need to have it secured while it's in your car. You said no. Where is the line between safe and unsafe objects? Goes back to the issue with drunk driving.

 

[Blood Eagle]

A good example of how stupid your gun laws are is slide stocks. Why is something that essentially makes semi-auto rifles fully auto considered legal, when fully auto rifles aren't? At what point does anyone even need a semi-auto weapon? let alone one with a slide stock, making it possible to emulate fully auto fire.

Those are legal because the definition of a fully automatic rifle is a rifle with selective fire capabilities where one trigger pull can shoot multiple rounds. Slide fire, slam fire or whatever you want to call it does not change the cyclic rate of fire of a semi auto rifle. One round per trigger pull is still happening with them. You can shoot a semi auto without one of those stocks almost as fast. They are illegal in California. Also, full auto's are not full blown illegal, you can legally obtain one through a process, ATF approval and paying tax stamps on NFA items like silencers, full autos, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and AOW (Any Other Weapon that fits into an NFA profile). The NFA (National Firearms Act) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are still in effect. Most gun people look down on slide fire stocks and they don't serve much of a purpose.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Your logic could be applied to anything. Who needs to collect anything when the simplest form of their hobby would be sufficient. Maybe some people like collecting such weapons because they appreciate them as a tool & like firing them in controlled areas. I've shot my friend's Eagle as well as his old AK at a gun range; I can see the appeal of it as a hobby because that's what it is to some people.

It's the same thing as people who collect swords & knives. People have absolutely no use for them, but they don't buy them for practical means to begin with.

Remember where I said if your stance is "I like guns so I don't want them taken away", then no one can argue with that. I stand by that. If you indeed like collecting guns, and you are an enthusiast. That is what you should use to argue the point with anyone who actually wants them taken away. I argued with the point that guns are needed for protection. They aren't. My original post was relevant to the OP, and this tangent has been taken far enough.

 

[LeMansAid]

I don't think rewards are necessary for validity, but here is one potentially, a driver less distracted by an uncomfortable device.

That doesn't really matter anyway until the question.....

Are there any actions that you believe should be stopped prior to harm coming to another?

....is answered.

Also, could you adjust post #94 and credit the actual author of the second and third quotes? As it stands, they appear as if they are my words.

 

[Mike_grpA]

What I am ultimately taking from you is that we have to act very carefully around cops. Unfortunately, I am afraid that is accurate these days. A few months back I told my daughter I couldn't go because the light was red and it was against the law. She said, "If we break the law the police will come and shoot us, right Daddy?" She is four and my wife and I have gone out of our way to not discuss current events involving things like Michael Brown in her presence, because we wanted her to be able to trust police in case she did need them. When I was four police were friendly gentlemen who helped Curious George find his way home or stopped bank robbers.

Today a four-year-old child thinks they are someone who will come and shoot you for a traffic violation. To me, that says everything.

Unfortunately you are 100% right there. When I was young, police presence made you feel safe. But to kids these days, police are scary people that might hurt them. I think it's a product of the world we live in today. The media doesn't help with all the fear they spread.
In Australia, the media seems to love stories that spread fear and hatred towards other cultures, particularly Muslims. Then the average person wonders why neo nazi groups start popping up claiming they will force other cultures out of the country. The police must get very nervous with these kinds of tensions building.

 

[LeMansAid]

In Australia, the media seems to love stories that spread fear and hatred towards other cultures, particularly Muslims. Then the average person wonders why neo nazi groups start popping up claiming they will force other cultures out of the country. The police must get very nervous with these kinds of tensions building.

The media wouldn't do it if they couldn't sell it. We get what "we" are willing to buy.

 

[Mike_grpA]

The media wouldn't do it if they couldn't sell it. We get what "we" are willing to buy.

Very true. People in Aus are scared of Muslims because of extremists, and the media knows that, so stories feeding that fear will be very popular. It's just unfortunate.

 

[McLaren]

Remember where I said if your stance is "I like guns so I don't want them taken away", then no one can argue with that. I stand by that. If you indeed like collecting guns, and you are an enthusiast. That is what you should use to argue the point with anyone who actually wants them taken away. I argued with the point that guns are needed for protection. They aren't. My original post was relevant to the OP, and this tangent has been taken far enough.

Fair enough. 👍

Unfortunately you are 100% right there. When I was young, police presence made you feel safe. But to kids these days, police are scary people that might hurt them. I think it's a product of the world we live in today. The media doesn't help with all the fear they spread.
In Australia, the media seems to love stories that spread fear and hatred towards other cultures, particularly Muslims. Then the average person wonders why neo nazi groups start popping up claiming they will force other cultures out of the country. The police must get very nervous with these kinds of tensions building.

Maybe I haven't dived far enough into Australia's history, but it seems a lot of the tension between native Aussies & Middle Easterners really peaked from the Cronulla riots. Most of the Aussies I've listened to speaking about tensions with the Middle East usually mention Cronulla somewhere in their views.

Our media meanwhile, is to busy spreading hatred between whites & blacks.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Cronulla was a reaction by bogans to basically anyone who wasn't white, not just middle easterners. But I think a lot of it is to do with the entire western world's views of the middle east as being full of terrorists, based on the actions of a few. Obviously, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows there's an extremist element to many groups in society, not just muslims, and that most muslims are peaceful. Unfortunately Australia has a long history of extreme racism. The movie Romper Stomper is actually very accurate of what Aus was like back then. It isn't much different now when it comes to these types of racist bogans, just their target has changed somewhat from "****ing asians" to "****ing muslims".

Every country has something the general population is ashamed of. Racist bogans are ours

*edit. I should actually change that to bigoted, because religion isn't anything to do with race. These people are racists, but in this regard they are also being bigoted toward anyone who identifies as muslim.

 

[Exorcet]

That doesn't really matter anyway until the question.....

"Are there any actions that you believe should be stopped prior to harm coming to another?"

....is answered.

Only if the chance of harm is 100% should it be banned. Though there are of course risks I'm personally not willing to take.

Also, could you adjust post #94 and credit the actual author of the second and third quotes? As it stands, they appear as if they are my words.

My mistake. I really don't like it when it quotes do not include a link to the original post, I don't know how I missed that.

 

[Parker]

What I am ultimately taking from you is that we have to act very carefully around cops. Unfortunately, I am afraid that is accurate these days. A few months back I told my daughter I couldn't go because the light was red and it was against the law. She said, "If we break the law the police will come and shoot us, right Daddy?" She is four and my wife and I have gone out of our way to not discuss current events involving things like Michael Brown in her presence, because we wanted her to be able to trust police in case she did need them. When I was four police were friendly gentlemen who helped Curious George find his way home or stopped bank robbers.

Today a four-year-old child thinks they are someone who will come and shoot you for a traffic violation. To me, that says everything.

I'd say that has far more to do with the child's upbringing than anything else. I can recall when I was younger and being fascinated with police, I'd run up to them and talk to them ad I can't recall a single one that was even the least bit disrespectful.

Fast forward to today, well last night actually. I was in a gas station in full uniform and two younger children ran up to me and hugged both of my legs. I looked down and smiled and they just said "thank you for protecting us." From what I'm reading in this thread that shouldn't happen, or at least it shouldn't be the norm. I certainly disagree with that though, I have far more people thank me, shake my hand or hug me (plenty of them are kids) while I'm in uniform than I have people who go out of their way to disrespect me and my career.

In fact I've actually had conversations with people who I hear telling their kids to stay away from me because I'm a racist "pig." I know for a fact that isn't helping the kid in any way, shape or form and I'd wager that conversations like that are why I constantly hear "you're only arresting me because I'm black!" after I witness someone break the law and I cuff them.

I'm not going to get involved in this thread because I really don't care to. I deal with ignorant people on a daily basis, people who hate me simply because of my job while they claim I hate them because of their race. Fortunately those people aren't even close to the majority, they are generally the people that constantly have run ins with the law and instead of evaluating and changing their life, they assume that we "pigs" are racist and continue to break the law. The majority of people stop me and thank me, they talk to me, shake my hand or hug me. Having one person say "thanks for your service" effects me way more than 10 thugs calling me a pig.

I would like to suggest that you all try and go for a ride along with your local police department. There are many things that Officer's do that are strange or make no sense to a civilian, a ride along would go a long way in not only explaining why those things are done, but showing exactly why they are done like that. It would also give someone a great chance to see exactly the sort of people we regularly deal with as well as give some insight to use of force incidents and policies.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'd say that has far more to do with the child's upbringing than anything else. I can recall when I was younger and being fascinated with police, I'd run up to them and talk to them ad I can't recall a single one that was even the least bit disrespectful.

Fast forward to today, well last night actually. I was in a gas station in full uniform and two younger children ran up to me and hugged both of my legs. I looked down and smiled and they just said "thank you for protecting us." From what I'm reading in this thread that shouldn't happen, or at least it shouldn't be the norm. I certainly disagree with that though, I have far more people thank me, shake my hand or hug me (plenty of them are kids) while I'm in uniform than I have people who go out of their way to disrespect me and my career.

In fact I've actually had conversations with people who I hear telling their kids to stay away from me because I'm a racist "pig." I know for a fact that isn't helping the kid in any way, shape or form and I'd wager that conversations like that are why I constantly hear "you're only arresting me because I'm black!" after I witness someone break the law and I cuff them.

I'm not going to get involved in this thread because I really don't care to. I deal with ignorant people on a daily basis, people who hate me simply because of my job while they claim I hate them because of their race. Fortunately those people aren't even close to the majority, they are generally the people that constantly have run ins with the law and instead of evaluating and changing their life, they assume that we "pigs" are racist and continue to break the law. The majority of people stop me and thank me, they talk to me, shake my hand or hug me. Having one person say "thanks for your service" effects me way more than 10 thugs calling me a pig.

I would like to suggest that you all try and go for a ride along with your local police department. There are many things that Officer's do that are strange or make no sense to a civilian, a ride along would go a long way in not only explaining why those things are done, but showing exactly why they are done like that. It would also give someone a great chance to see exactly the sort of people we regularly deal with as well as give some insight to use of force incidents and policies.

Great insight from the front lines. Thank you and thank you for your service:tup:👍

I have a had many, many dealings with police over the years for various reasons. Break ins at the business, runaway children, drunken brawls, rowdy neighbours and more and I've never seen anything but courteous, professional conduct. I've also had occasion to visit (for service work) the local jail many, many times over the past decade or so and know the kind of scum and lowlifes you deal with on a daily basis and I can easily see how that part of the job could really wear on someone.

 

[BobK]

If your guns aren't kept locked away in a gun safe, they are more likely to be used in accidental deaths/suicide. The safest place to have your guns is a gun safe, but that's because you aren't very likely to ever use a gun to protect yourself, statistically you're more likely to kill yourself with it.

I think the fact that a gun is more likely to be used in a suicide than for self-defense is meaningless without a lot more context. For instance, is the suicide rate amongst gun owners higher than the suicide rate of non-gun owners? If it is, then you have a point. If not, then your fact is meaningless in this discussion.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'd say that has far more to do with the child's upbringing than anything else. I can recall when I was younger and being fascinated with police, I'd run up to them and talk to them ad I can't recall a single one that was even the least bit disrespectful.

I should note that only a few weeks before this conversation my daughter was at the state fair. I was working the booth right next to the KSP and JCPD booths. I took my daughter to those booths and she enjoyed seeing the giant inflatable trooper and the remote controlled police dog car that talked to her. She doesn't distrust police, but somehow this idea that cops show up and just shoot people who are breaking the law is in her mindset.

Don't mistake what I am trying to say as that all cops are racist or violent. I know it is far from it. Last night I did a 3k fundraiser for my daughter's school in Frankfort. Due to my health I am always very close to being one of the last people. The police block all the streets for us, and an officer follows the last participants in his car so that streets can be reopened immediately and anyone who needs medical help has someone right there to call it in and assist.

The problem is not police in general. The problem is the apparently increasing frequency of unarmed deaths by police. I say apparent because only in this time of attention are the statistics beginning to be collected and reported. It is not surprising that in many cases these same officers had past complaints. It is a select few. They may even be operating within the rules during those instances, but they are going further than your average officer does, pushing the line.

It only appears worse when you hear stories of retaliation against officers that try to report abuses.


Like it or not, and justified or not, police have a PR problem. You are not politicians who just misspoke in an interview or had a mistress. You can't avoid it long enough for people to forget. We are talking about dead people. It needs to be addressed, and just having a union representative and an internal investigation claim nothing wrong happened will not convince anyone. That's like a corrupt politician saying he had his accountant review his financials and there was nothing illegal. The public won't believe it.

It's time to break the code of silence, be much more visible and open to the public, and allow full monitoring of your activities. At a bare minimum, every police officer should never make the idiotic move of acting aggressively toward a bystander with a camera. All that does is make people wonder what the officer is willing to do when he knows he isn't on camera.


People who generally complain don't want police dead, eliminated, or think they are all racist pigs. Ferguson is not the norm. Each individual station will have its own culture of behavior. But now the public has more access to see everything you do. If they don't like what they see they will complain. It is important to remember that at the end of the day you are a public servant. You work for the public. You might find it to be a pain, but just like we have to be careful about driving and how we appear when an officer is watching us you need to be careful about your behavior and how you appear when the public is watching you. You might not agree with how we expect you to behave, but we don't agree with all the laws you enforce.

 

[Swagger897]

So it is reasonable to expect us to act as if we are afraid a cop will to just start shooting us because we did something that would be normal in any other situation? If this is the case then it is a perfect demonstration of the problem. We are now supposed to be afraid of cops. That is not how it is supposed to work.

No, never did I say "we have to be afraid of cops." The man could had of reached for anything from his wallet to a gun, and everything in between. Me, knowing that police are (were really because I'm not still sure) told/trained to not allow someone to re-enter their car, yes, I would still had of said "I'm reaching in my car to get xx...."

The man was out of his car before he realized a cop had come up on him. If you are paranoid about someone possibly being a threat to you then you don't ask them to get where they are in a more obstructed view than they already are.

Most of all modern-day police vehicles have speakers, with a microphone abilities... Again, from what I've been told by officers themselves, is that they want people to stay in their cars, and if already out, not return.

The guy in the Ohio Walmart was not in his car, nor did anyone ask to see his permit before opening fire on him. Not that it matters as he only had a toy that was being sold by the store he was in.

I'm not talking about that issue right now am I?

Not sure what this is referencing. Based on location, perhaps to do with the NSA stuff?

The man to whom you linked to me who lived in Oregon who was searched out by the FBI recently converted to a Muslim. I didn't think your analyzing skills were this bad...

I once got pulled over for a DUI because I pulled out of a bar parking lot and then changed lanes immediately after turning into my nearest lane, per as taught in driver's ed, and then merged into the lane I needed to be in to turn at the next light. When it was clear I was sober, and had only picked up friend a who had been drinking to drive him home, I was threatened with reckless driving and having my license revoked. It was cold and I unconsciously stuck my hands in my pockets. Despite feeling as though this cop was profiling college kids (something a later court case showed was a departmental problem) the officer acted rationally and politely asked me to keep my hands out of my pockets, and even apologized for having to do it in the cold.

I have anecdotes too.

Doesn't make any sense how that's considered a DUI. What you may think is perfectly normal may be reckless, I don't know though because I didn't see it happen..

It was an organized art society fundraiser. The story clearly stated it as such. The courts cleared everyone of all charges, but they still had to pay to get their cars, that were unlawfully taken, back.

That's a separate issue, not involved in a State v. State.

You can if the cop is acting unlawfully, which his own police force and the district attorney believe he did. And you can have a cop that uses excessive violent that is not corrupt and you can have a very peaceful corrupt cop. Both are unlawful.

Abuse of civil asset forfeiture is a form of legally supported corruption in my mind. It pads the police budgets.

Then he shouldn't have a job. If you were a business owner and your accountant is purging out funds into their own accounts, they wouldn't still have the job would they?

Now whether or not officers are kept for some emotional bond somewhere in between, that's a ridiculous excuse...

So, are you saying the unlawful shooting of this man was the fault of the man or the cop?

For the sake of what actually happened, yes, the officer is at fault. It is similar to my view of the man who screamed jihad on the UAL flight recently... His actions made should not be forgotten for his repentance, nor should his punishment either.
To think that he, the man on the flight, may leave Scott-free because of what his "mental condition" may be, is ridiculous. What would the same outcome be fourteen years ago had this happen, after 9/11?

What I am ultimately taking from you is that we have to act very carefully around cops.

No, that is not our job. That is the forces job. They are not to hurt us unreasonably unless we have a warrant. It is our job to give all information we have to the fullest and respect them and their authority. For everyone who is a "hater" on police and affiliates, why don't they pick up the job themselves, or any other less appealing job..

A few months back I told my daughter I couldn't go because the light was red and it was against the law. She said, "If we break the law the police will come and shoot us, right Daddy?" She is four and my wife and I have gone out of our way to not discuss current events involving things like Michael Brown in her presence, because we wanted her to be able to trust police in case she did need them. When I was four police were friendly gentlemen who helped Curious George find his way home or stopped bank robbers.

Today a four-year-old child thinks they are someone who will come and shoot you for a traffic violation. To me, that says everything.

I feel sad for you for what your daughter thinks, because I too agree with what you used to think of them. In fact, I still do feel the same. I'm no psychologist (but I know many in high places) but if she doesn't watch the news, then what other outlets does she get the sense that "cops kill kids", or however one four-year-old may put it. I wouldn't discuss that in front of a child much less than eight either, but I wouldn't find that, acceptable I guess is the word, for someone to believe in that train of thought when quite frankly that isn't true.

If it were me (and I, and eighteen-year-old, am not telling you how to raise your kids or anyone else's), I would take her to a station to let her ask questions. Now if she's shy that may be a problem, but I'm sure at a young age when our brains were all sponges, that she may understand and change her mind...

Well, besides maybe hurrying to buckle up as you pass a cop, I don't think the seatbelt would cause many issues.

Nope, neither do I.

You said that you don't worry about the potentially danger brought about just by driving a car because people need to pass a test to get a license. If the test takes care of most of the problems with driving, then I'd assume the same could be done with alcohol (or drugs).

If you agreed I would have gone on to ask how you determine what the safe limit is. I wanted to point out that the ban on drunk driving that most are comfortable with is pretty arbitrary, but this has been covered in the Humans Rights thread so maybe it's just better to leave it at that.

I understand that now after you put it in a better light..

No, a test would not make sense of it, because your state of mind and reasoning skills is altered and cannot be controlled by yourself (in reasonable time or accuracy. Or both). That's one of the main reasons I think weed (whatever you prefer to spell it, it's shorter that way for me) was illegal because people were under the perception it altered the mind in an uncontrollable state.

Yes, I was pointing out that the tissue box can hurt (while a hit to the back of the head may not be a big deal, if it hits your eye it might cause severe damage). Do you need to have it secured while it's in your car. You said no. Where is the line between safe and unsafe objects? Goes back to the issue with drunk driving.

I don't think you are understanding it here... It for one does not go back to drunk driving because we aren't talking about restraining a person DUI. Hell, we've gotten so far off the original point (which was determining whether or not it should be the law for a person to be required to wear a seat-belt) it doesn't really matter anymore...

My point was when litigation happens for damaged property or bodily harm, whose fault would it be???

 

[FoolKiller]

No, never did I say "we have to be afraid of cops." The man could had of reached for anything from his wallet to a gun, and everything in between. Me, knowing that police are (were really because I'm not still sure) told/trained to not allow someone to re-enter their car, yes, I would still had of said "I'm reaching in my car to get xx...."

You knowing that police are trained a certain way does not make what this man did a mistake. He took a perfectly natural action. It's the same as when police will yank an arm behind a person in a way that triggers a reflexive action to pull back and then charge him with resisting arrest, possibly assaulting an officer.

Most of all modern-day police vehicles have speakers, with a microphone abilities... Again, from what I've been told by officers themselves, is that they want people to stay in their cars, and if already out, not return.

What an officer wants and what an average guy who is completely caught off guard by a cop coming up behind him are two very different things. Perhaps police need to also take some courses on human behavior that focuses on distinguishing between natural behavior and threatening behavior.

I'm not talking about that issue right now am I?

You mentioned open carry and since you didn't directly quote anything but had it in line with where I mentioned the Walmart case, I assumed you were.

The man to whom you linked to me who lived in Oregon who was searched out by the FBI recently converted to a Muslim. I didn't think your analyzing skills were this bad...

Sorry, I got thrown off by your comments on your own religion and the fact that I feel like there is some kind of language barrier. Not sure how him converting to Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world, makes him a suspect and justifies confirmation bias when other intelligence agencies and evidence are saying the guy is innocent. We aren't ready to accept another round of concentration camps...yet.

Doesn't make any sense how that's considered a DUI.

Which is why I didn't get charged with one. He didn't even bother with a sobriety or breath test, it was so obvious that I was sober. But as I pointed out, the city was later found guilty of profiling the university students in that town. Anyone who parks on campus has a parking tag on their rear window, making it very easy to discriminate between students and everyone else.

What you may think is perfectly normal may be reckless, I don't know though because I didn't see it happen..

After another cop showed up and they talked for five minutes I didn't get charged with reckless driving either. I don't know if it was the officers call or the responding officer's, but that's how it went down. I think he was just trying to give me crap. I don't doubt that he used to run into mouthy, rude students on a regular basis and probably already had me figured out, only to find out he pulled over a relatively quiet nerd who was trying to help his friend.

That's a separate issue, not involved in a State v. State.

Um, I never said it was state vs state. I am saying, they were not loitering by any definition of the law, nor committing any crimes, but the police department budget did get a few thousand dollars in fees out of it.

Then he shouldn't have a job.

And that is where the issue comes in. Too often cases are "cleared up" by nothing more than an internal investigation. When a cop does get into trouble and/or fired the union representatives quickly jump to their aid.

If you were a business owner and your accountant is purging out funds into their own accounts, they wouldn't still have the job would they?

No. And I would have it thoroughly investigated by a third party that has no connection to the accountant whatsoever.

Now whether or not officers are kept for some emotional bond somewhere in between, that's a ridiculous excuse...

No, that is not our job. That is the forces job. They are not to hurt us unreasonably unless we have a warrant.

Actually, they are not to hurt us unreasonably ever. That would be covered in the 8th Amendment.

It is our job to give all information we have to the fullest and respect them and their authority.

Actually, it is our right to not to. That would be the 5th Amendment and they clearly state it anytime they read someone their Miranda rights. In fact, if they choose to detain you to question you then you can still refuse to even be questioned until your lawyer is present.

You have rights and their authority does not trump that, no matter how much that pisses them off or makes them want to go all Jack Bauer on a suspect.

For everyone who is a "hater" on police and affiliates, why don't they pick up the job themselves, or any other less appealing job..

I'm not a hater. I know what they go through and deal with. But they have the legal authority to kill and harm. They should be held to a certain standard and be questioned anytime it appears that they may have gone beyond that point.

I feel sad for you for what your daughter thinks, because I too agree with what you used to think of them. In fact, I still do feel the same. I'm no psychologist (but I know many in high places) but if she doesn't watch the news, then what other outlets does she get the sense that "cops kill kids", or however one four-year-old may put it.

She does go to school. I imagine she is exposed to these things at the same place that she is exposed to Katie Perry music, which neither my wife or I listen to.

I wouldn't discuss that in front of a child much less than eight either, but I wouldn't find that, acceptable I guess is the word, for someone to believe in that train of thought when quite frankly that isn't true.

If it were me (and I, and eighteen-year-old, am not telling you how to raise your kids or anyone else's), I would take her to a station to let her ask questions. Now if she's shy that may be a problem, but I'm sure at a young age when our brains were all sponges, that she may understand and change her mind...

We told her they wouldn't do that. Read my post above mine to see where I have exposed her to police. She was in a car accident a few months ago and that gave her a good experience with how police can help.

My point was when litigation happens for damaged property or bodily harm, whose fault would it be???

That would be worked out the same way it was before seatbelt laws existed. Each case is different.

 

[Swagger897]

You knowing that police are trained a certain way does not make what this man did a mistake. He took a perfectly natural action. It's the same as when police will yank an arm behind a person in a way that triggers a reflexive action to pull back and then charge him with resisting arrest, possibly assaulting an officer.

I agree.

What an officer wants and what an average guy who is completely caught off guard by a cop coming up behind him are two very different things. Perhaps police need to also take some courses on human behavior that focuses on distinguishing between natural behavior and threatening behavior.

Uhh, didn't the guy have to drive past the vehicle to get parked where he was?

You mentioned open carry and since you didn't directly quote anything but had it in line with where I mentioned the Walmart case, I assumed you were.

I never expressed any interest into it because I was in my lunch break for classes. So no...

Sorry, I got thrown off by your comments on your own religion and the fact that I feel like there is some kind of language barrier. Not sure how him converting to Islam, the fastest growing religion in the world, makes him a suspect and justifies confirmation bias when other intelligence agencies and evidence are saying the guy is innocent. We aren't ready to accept another round of concentration camps...yet.

Well there isn't so....

Which is why I didn't get charged with one. He didn't even bother with a sobriety or breath test, it was so obvious that I was sober. But as I pointed out, the city was later found guilty of profiling the university students in that town. Anyone who parks on campus has a parking tag on their rear window, making it very easy to discriminate between students and everyone else.

Well that's good.

After another cop showed up and they talked for five minutes I didn't get charged with reckless driving either. I don't know if it was the officers call or the responding officer's, but that's how it went down. I think he was just trying to give me crap. I don't doubt that he used to run into mouthy, rude students on a regular basis and probably already had me figured out, only to find out he pulled over a relatively quiet nerd who was trying to help his friend.

I have the same thoughts for some people, but not the majority and that seem to be what the officer had..

Actually, they are not to hurt us unreasonably ever. That would be covered in the 8th Amendment.

I thought the eighth only covered while on gvnm't property... You would think that the man who said "tasers for all" would had of thought sending electricity is cruel, after the electric chair has been banned...

Actually, it is our right to not to. That would be the 5th Amendment and they clearly state it anytime they read someone their Miranda rights. In fact, if they choose to detain you to question you then you can still refuse to even be questioned until your lawyer is present.

You have rights and their authority does not trump that, no matter how much that pisses them off or makes them want to go all Jack Bauer on a suspect.

That wasn't exactly the situation I had in my mind. More like when one of my neighbors smashed and dashed another one of my neighbors houses, and then ran through the woods. We had about 5 vehicles in my neighborhood, and a helicopter because the woods are quite extensive but open up to a dead forest. Anyways, we were asked some basic questions (did you know him, characteristics of him, aggressive much), just things to help narrow it down.. I mean, I'm not going to be a jackass to them if the guy walks up to me and says "did you....".
Now, if it were me about to be thrown in the backseat and hauled off, yeah, if that's where your getting at. Suspects I guess is a better word.
But as a person who is involved in the greater community, no, that's not what I think you were getting at...

I'm not a hater. I know what they go through and deal with. But they have the legal authority to kill and harm. They should be held to a certain standard and be questioned anytime it appears that they may have gone beyond that point.

Good. Same here.

She does go to school. I imagine she is exposed to these things at the same place that she is exposed to Katie Perry music, which neither my wife or I listen to.

Most likely. I didn't want to seem too arrogant and blurt that out first..

That would be worked out the same way it was before seatbelt laws existed. Each case is different.

But then it might roll into trends and then you get people who analyze such trends and then people who try to come up with solutions for people to stop killing people involuntarily..

 

[Rich S]

I'm not concerned about getting gunned down, if I was a cop wearing armor & carrying a M & P 9 that's more than enough to deal with 99% of the situations. These cops that were gunned down were one in 20,000. You have a solid chance of becoming a multi millionaire, getting drafted to the NFL, or being struck by lightning if there is a worry over police being ambushed.

Here's a story: I was doing a bicycle road stage race in my backyard (all the races were in my area within 50 miles of my house close by cycling standards). During the stage closest to my house (10 miles away my stomping grounds) I was in a breakaway from the pack of about 6 riders. Every lap of a 5 lap 14 mi circuit we were shot at by a "sniper" with a .22. He missed every time and I heard none of the shots I was told afterwards what happened by someone else. I still ride in that area today and I really dont give a crap, the people there are fine. There was one crazy and the police dealt with him.

The point is you cannot live in fear based on what the media says, if you did you'd never leave your home.

If you listened to the social conservatives on Fox news you'd never have sex. You'd go to church 3 times a week and you'd never drink, you'd never have any fun and your life would be like a baptist from the late 19th century. These people are fear mongerers pure and simple. They are not capitalists or free market, they are something else. I dont know what they are but their imposters to free capital society.

 

[Swagger897]

If you listened to the social conservatives on Fox news you'd never have sex. You'd go to church 3 times a week and you'd never drink, you'd never have any fun and your life would be like a baptist from the late 19th century. These people are fear mongerers pure and simple. They are not capitalists or free market, they are something else. I dont know what they are but their imposters to free capital society.

If you watch Fox in the first place and actually associate the term "news" with them, you're gonna have bad day...

 

[FoolKiller]

If you watch Fox in the first place and actually associate the term "news" with them, you're gonna have bad day...

It's as much news as any other cable news channel.

 

[Swagger897]

It's as much news as any other cable news channel.

With a bias on an extremist could match.

 

[FoolKiller]

With a bias on an extremist could match.

And MSNBC swings just as wide the other way. Media research is my thing. I worked in the field for eight years. No news is unbiased, and the ones that want ratings will focus on commentary shows.

We are long past the days of Edward R Murrow.

 

[Swagger897]

And MSNBC swings just as wide the other way. Media research is my thing. I worked in the field for eight years. No news is unbiased, and the ones that want ratings will focus on commentary shows.

We are long past the days of Edward R Murrow.

I do like the NBC network but I don't watch much of them. The only news I watch is my local abc station, NBC Nightly News (which I'm thoroughly pissed at what happened to Brian Williams), and CNN when there's a live event...

 

[BradTC12]

If you watch Fox in the first place and actually associate the term "news" with them, you're gonna have bad day...

But at the same time they're considered one of Americas most trusted news network. I don't trust the liberal media.