US law enforcement gone to hell

[3bob]

another horrific example of our US law enforcement gone to hell:

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/video-released-shows-police-killing-unarmed-man-in-la-suburb/ar-AAcYJOP?ocid=mailsignout

 

 

[Grok]

Yes this is disgusting. 

 

But I don't think this is a US problem. This is a mankind problem. This happens all over the world. At least in the US we get it on camera and we have a court of law that isn't entirely corrupt. Way better than a lot of countries. Way better.

 

I feel what your saying though. Something has to change, its getting ridiculous at this point.

[3bob]

yes its a mankind problem but considering how so many high placed and powerful talking heads in the US constantly harp about human rights, I think this is even worse to be happening here...

[Marblehead]

It took nearly two years of legal fighting by the media to get access to that video.  The video belonged to the public, paid for by the public. 

 

But I agree with Grok as well.

[Geof Nanto]

The Guardian newspaper in the UK has been running a series of articles on the extraordinarily high rate of police homicides in the USA. Here's the link to one of them.....

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

[Marblehead]

Sad.

[soaring crane]

It's an American problem. It's a problem if you have to compare your country with the most violent countries on Earth to find comfort.

Also, this belongs on OT. I'll move it later.

[GreytoWhite]

I used to live in Chandler and this is really no surprise.

 

http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/cell-phone-video-chandler-officer-illegally-enters-womans-home-arrests-her-while-she-is-naked

[thelerner]

I used to live in Chandler and this is really no surprise.

 

http://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/cell-phone-video-chandler-officer-illegally-enters-womans-home-arrests-her-while-she-is-naked

If you read the article, then read the link to the police report, you get an idea of how complicated life must be for police and what a tangled hell it is to answer domestic violence/disturbance calls.  It's not that the police officer was right, but there's ambiguous, questionable things going on.   

 

Some, a small minority of officers act criminally because they're bad people, others are making bad decisions because they're used to bad situations and in fear for there safety.   Police here are more violent because the U.S society is more violent, stratified and gun ridden.

[Enishi]

If you read the article, then read the link to the police report, you get an idea of how complicated life must be for police and what a tangled hell it is to answer domestic violence/disturbance calls.  It's not that the police officer was right, but there's ambiguous, questionable things going on.   

 

Some, a small minority of officers act criminally because they're bad people, others are making bad decisions because they're used to bad situations and in fear for there safety.   Police here are more violent because the U.S society is more violent, stratified and gun ridden.

 

Several officers/security guards I've talked to at one of my current jobs have remarked that domestic violence calls are the absolute worst thing to have to deal with.

 

Recent abuses by police definitely need to be curtailed but I can readily imagine just how monstrously stressful it is from their side.

[thelerner]

 

Recent abuses by police definitely need to be curtailed but I can readily imagine just how monstrously stressful it is from their side.

The case mentioned in the OP is horrible, but there was call about a stolen bike and it said they may be armed.  It was dark, the victim had his arms up, then brought them down, then walked towards the police..  He didn't deserve what happened, but for God's sake.  When a guns is pointed at you from a cop or crook, keeps your hands up and mouth shut.  Movement can be misinterpreted and its a dangerous mistake.

 

I'm sorry this comes off so callous but within the calls for justice from police violence there has to be a message in how to react when arrested or pulled over.   In too many of these shootings the victim would have been fine if they hadn't resisted arrest or literally charged at an armed officer.  That's what lawyers are for. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by thelerner

[GreytoWhite]

Police here are more violent because the U.S society is more violent, stratified and gun ridden.

 

I grew up in Stockton, CA which is violent, stratified, and gun ridden - Chandler ain't that.

[the1gza]

The case mentioned in the OP is horrible, but there was call about a stolen bike and it said they may be armed.  It was dark, the victim had his arms up, then brought them down, then walked towards the police..  He didn't deserve what happened, but for God's sake.  When a guns is pointed at you from a cop or crook, keeps your hands up and mouth shut.  Movement can be misinterpreted and its a dangerous mistake.

 

I'm sorry this comes off so callous but within the calls for justice from police violence there has to be a message in how to react when arrested or pulled over.   In too many of these shootings the victim would have been fine if they hadn't resisted arrest or literally charged at an armed officer.  That's what lawyers are for. 

Thank you. I'm sorry, but this cop stuff is getting out of control, and people are thinking that, for some reason, you can act like a jackass around cops. Now cop or not, the last thing I would do in front of an armed person is even talk shit, let alone run at them, start moving around, or do anything provoking. In response to any of this, there has been 0 perceivable effort on the part of complainers to organize classes where they teach young adults to start being a lot more mindful of how they carry themselves in the streets and especially around the police. There has, however, been a 100% effort to do what people always do: complain.

 

Perhaps people aren't aware, but cops aren't as well-trained as you think. Cops are not armed to deal with a great deal of the confrontation they can expect in some places (not all), especially in cities or areas that are heavy with gang presence. Cops, on some occasions, have shotguns in their vehicles, but most are not trained to deal with a person a group of people who may be carrying automatic rifles, desert eagles, and even explosives. I know I for damn sure couldn't be a cop, because I am not allowed to shoot in enough situations. I know that the rule of not being able to shoot a perp unless they are wielding weaponry in hand is extremely dangerous, especially in a place like Chicago. Kids who are being chased will often lead cops into ambushes where there are crowds of armed people in vacant alley or something of that nature. 

 

So shit, folks gotta start taking internal responsibility for this, because this is not just a problem with cops. 

[Geof Nanto]

Yes, the police are literally in firing line of deeper societal problems. I don't live in the US but I'm wondering if there is any talk of redirecting some of the massive defence budget to social programs, with the aim of redressing some of the underlying problems that cause so much violence. Surely that's what defence is all about; namely making the country a safe place to live.

 

Below is a chart showing annual military expenditure for the top five nations (2014). As can be seen the US budget could be massively trimmed and still be the world leader. 

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Yueya

[thelerner]

 

All of these factors combine to form a real problem with policing, and also a problem with the militarization of police. If they had shot the man with rubber bullets instead, he would probably have only suffered non life threatening injuries but would still have been incapacitated. Even a taser may have been effective in the situation in the video, likely sparing the man's life. With all of the attention improper policing has received lately, it is astounding to me that more departments are not looking at alternatives to officers carrying guns as their primary means to "protect and serve" the public.

I'm sure its been studied and dismissed but rubber bullets sound good to me. 

Yet as always unintended consequences will show up.  Even tasers have known to kill, and who knows, maybe rubber bullets would make some people more shot happy?  And ofcourse cops themselves may balk at having rubber bullets when the bad guys use lead. 

[thelerner]

I'm wondering if there is any talk of redirecting some of the massive defence budget to social programs, with the aim of redressing some of the underlying problems that cause so much violence. Surely that's what defence is all about; namely making the country a safe place to live.

 

Below is a chart showing annual military expenditure for the top five nations (2014). As can be seen the US budget could be massively trimmed and still be the world leader. 

 

Unfortunately not only is the answer no, but there's whole new problem of police forces getting military leftovers.  So in times of trouble instead of foot cops who can possibly be sympathetic and talk people down, we have mini-tanks, armored carriers and full battle gear that looks like its out star wars except they're carrying M16's (which actually would have been way more effective the inaccurate blasters).  

 

John Olliver in his program Last Week had a great segment on the problem.  Its sad when the best muck raking is from comediennes.    

 

<<later add  just found this: new warships only $13 billion dollars each.  Yay

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/06/18/uss-gerald-ford-orig.cnn

Edited July 17, 2015 by thelerner

[the1gza]

While criminals do not carry Kevlar one them, in terms of firepower cops are often severely disadvantaged, at least in the case of gang violence. Gang gun seizures are usually overran with high-powered automatic weaponry. I think taking away a police officer's ability to have a readily lethal defense option is a bad move, because they are likely to encounter someone who is hellbent on dealing lethal action. This is why it is not a cop problem, with society the way it is, you can't just try to "fix" one area of it when the entire structure is broken up. The fact that we accept certain issues as being "normal" like mass gang violence, poverty, government corruption, social unrest, and then put these problems squarely on the shoulders of politics and officials to fix... it's not a winning combination. People at the ground level would have to start taking massive action to make these things a reality, and this is something that does not happen. It partially doesn't happen because there are not deep considerations that are focused on really assessing the current frame of human priorities and what honestly needs to change. Hence, even when upheavals or changes are made, they are simply revolutions into a different appearance of the same thing rather than evolutions into a new way of living and doing something. 

 

I honestly think that taking away police lethality would just get more cops killed and then serve as an even grater justification for miltarization of law enforcement. Communities themselves have to start becoming active in getting rid of internal violence, and this again is gonna require a human quality that is not commonly expressed or even thought of as being possible. But if we can't eradicate the causes of violence, then we cannot be mad when it gets out of hand. People getting at at cops rather than getting serious about eradicating the issues that are leading us to this just shows how unprepared people are for a change that could actually solve the problems we face in terms of law enforcement.

[gendao]

If it is possible to incapacitate someone through lethal means or non-lethal means, does it make a difference how lethal the opposition is?

 

To phrase it a different way, if a criminal is going to shoot a police officer, before being shot by a police officer, then it does not seem to me that it matters what kind of weapon the police officer has at the time they are being shot.

 

Conversely, if the officer is going to shoot a criminal who is carrying a bazooka, and the officer manages to incapacitate the criminal before they are able to fire the bazooka, does the bazooka really figure into the appropriate level of force being delivered by the officer?

 

Rubber bullets, flash/bang grenades, and proper training can incapacitate even a well trained opponent without taking their life. It does not seem to me that the objective of someone charged with "protecting and serving" the public should be to kill members of the public unless there is literally no other choice.

It's not just lethality, but armor-piercing capability.  If a sniper is taking cover inside a car and the cops only had rubber bullets, he could mow them all down as their superballs simply bounced off his car.  Whereas actual bullets could penetrate the windows, body, flatten his tires and immobilize the vehicle, etc...

 

But all of this is secondary to the root issues that lie within the problematic communities as the1gza outlined...which reducing law enforcement ALWAYS makes FAR WORSE!!!

[the1gza]

But that's all terribly theoretical, and a part of combat is whether or not a person actually feels their life is threatened. If perps don't honestly feel they are threatened physically in the same or worse effect that they are capable of wielding against the officer, they aren't as likely to even hold back or act with the restraint that they would if they knew that their life was very likely to end. A lot of officers are not getting shot at because they are "packin' heat"... if all they had were tasers and non-lethal weapons, they would not carry the same gravity in the mind of perps. Do you know how many gang members would roll on cops in droves if they thought the cop was carrying something that is very likely to kill them? It's not just about the combat situations, it's also about what leads to combat situations. Lethal weapons are far greater deterrents in the minds of these guys, and things like ambushes on cops are far less likely to happen just because those guys are afraid that, with a lethal gun being a carried by the cop, at least one of them could end up easily dead. With a bean bag or rubber bullet gun, that is not a threat.

 

And like gendao said, if you don't address the root issues, that is an initiative that is destined to fail. It's not just about perp lives, or even just about cop lives, but it's about solving ISSUES. Band-aids will not work one a gaping bullet wound, and right now we are dealing with so many that society might have to break down completely before a society that doesn't have these issues can exist. But non-lethal weapons for cops is DEFINITELY not the even a band-aid in this case.

[Brian]

Solution is surprisingly obvious -- paintballs.

 

Just pass a law (a regulation or executive order would also work) requiring anyone struck by a dark-blue paintball to lie down and wait to be collected by law enforcement officers.

 

The UN could pass a similar "international law" but specifying that nice shade of light-blue that they like.

[Brian]

I'm not trying to imply that police should not have access to regular firearms, but I don't see the problem with them carrying two firearms loaded with different ammunition and differentiating between them. I just don't think that the default response should be lethal.

Just for clarity, I am not aware of any US law enforcement agency for which lethal response is the default response. I am aware, however, a number of agencies in which well-intentioned rule-makers have severely restricted options available to LEO, having the unintended consequence of increasing the frequency with which pistols are drawn. Combine that with a culture in which law enforcement professionals are often viewed as enemies rather than public servants and you have a recipe for heartache.

 

Wish I still believed this was merely an accident.

[thelerner]

Solution is surprisingly obvious -- paintballs.

 

Just pass a law (a regulation or executive order would also work) requiring anyone struck by a dark-blue paintball to lie down and wait to be collected by law enforcement officers.

 

The UN could pass a similar "international law" but specifying that nice shade of light-blue that they like.

Seems like your idea might end all War also   

[soaring crane]

It comes to investment.

 

Do these kind of events occur frequently with state troopers?

[Brian]

It comes to investment.

 

Do these kind of events occur frequently with state troopers?

Unfortunately, troopers are too frequently left on the side of the road to die.

[thelerner]

Hmnn, I wonder in the end, if the greatest weapon of all is the camera? 

 

This is from the top of my head and sounds extreme right wing  and fascist even to me, anyhoo...  I just entered my kids high school and had to give them my drivers license and they took a picture of me and printed a sticker I had to wear.  What if all housing required not just name, address but also picture to be sent to some database.  Make it mandatory, immediate and easy, take a clear picture with a camera and email or text it to a number. 

 

A crime is committed take a picture, its linked to the database and most of the time the perp might be caught, less need for force, literally shoot first, A Picture, sent to a 911 kind of place that matches it as quickly as possible and pertinent information is relayed. 

 

<<edited to read goodlier

Edited July 18, 2015 by thelerner