Security, Police Training, and perceptions...

[TieXiongJi]

1. Can't see much, don't know what the call was. Officer may have been told the guy was armed or possibly armed.
Maybe he was told that, but the subject does not have a weapon and the officer fires while the subject is removing his earphones. IMO, Officer at fault.
2. Guy was ignoring commands, getting back to his car where police may assume he's going for a weapon.
And 4 Cops couldn't cover a guy while he is grabbing a license? They are too scared to be allowed deadly weapons. IMO, Officer at fault.
3. Looks like cops were called with a report of someone carrying a gun, so they came in with the (reasonable) understanding that they were facing an armed person. Someone carrying a big weapon like that would be assumed to be a huge risk. He looked toward cops and started raising the gun (probably wanting to show them it's a toy). They see armed subject raising a gun, rather than dropping it, so they shoot.
So instead of investigating the call, they react believing the call is 100% accurate. You are kidding me, right? IMO, Officer at fault.

I didn't keep going, because so far these don't demonstrate any obvious police failings. The first is ambiguous without some context. The second seems reasonable if the guy wasn't responding to tasers. The third takes only a little imagination to understand why it might reasonably go down that way.
Could you take a look at 6 and tell me that is acceptable?

I am not on the jury and am not in a position to sentence these officers. The information recorded on the camera shows me these officers do not know how to approach a dangerous suspect because they are too ready to kill a citizen to prevent any possible, and not present, danger.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

1. Can't see much, don't know what the call was. Officer may have been told the guy was armed or possibly armed.
2. Guy was ignoring commands, getting back to his car where police may assume he's going for a weapon.
3. Looks like cops were called with a report of someone carrying a gun, so they came in with the (reasonable) understanding that they were facing an armed person. Someone carrying a big weapon like that would be assumed to be a huge risk. He looked toward cops and started raising the gun (probably wanting to show them it's a toy). They see armed subject raising a gun, rather than dropping it, so they shoot.

I didn't keep going, because so far these don't demonstrate any obvious police failings. The first is ambiguous without some context. The second seems reasonable if the guy wasn't responding to tasers. The third takes only a little imagination to understand why it might reasonably go down that way.

That one he was actually charged and indicted. The first trial had a hung jury, so it's still undecided. Why would you throw that in as evidence that cops are allowed by the system to shoot people?

 

[TieXiongJi]

That one he was actually charged and indicted. The first trial had a hung jury, so it's still undecided. Why would you throw that in as evidence that cops are allowed by the system to shoot people?

I do concede that. I hadn't seen an update to the story in a while. I just remember people defending the officer until the observer released the video; some people still tried to defend it.

 

[ballen0351]

1. Maybe he was told that, but the subject does not have a weapon and the officer fires while the subject is removing his earphones. IMO, Officer at fault.

Ok 1st video. I believe your interpretation is a little off. Watch the video again. The male is walking away from the officers (there are at least 2 I see) He sees the cops coming and immediately shoves his hang into his waist band which is the most common area people conceal weapons. He the turns facing the officer still with his hand down the front of his pants. He quickly in a motion that simulates drawing a gun jerks his hand out of his pants and the officer shoots 1 shot. He was simulating the act of pulling a gun on the officer.

2. And 4 Cops couldn't cover a guy while he is grabbing a license? They are too scared to be allowed deadly weapons. IMO, Officer at fault.

He was high on PCP and ignoring command made a furtive movement towards the vehicle. having delt with many people on PCP fighting them with physical force rarely works your left with the dog pile and hold on method most of the time. Him acting like he reached for a gun kinda puts the dog pile technique on hold

3.
So instead of investigating the call, they react believing the call is 100% accurate. You are kidding me, right? IMO, Officer at fault.

depending on the call determines the amount of time is spent on "investigating the call" If they were told subject with a rifle is in the walmart pointing it at people and poof the see a guy in the store with a rifle well so far the "investigation" is backing up the callers info. At that point the officer reasonably belives there is an armed gun man in the store that just before he got there was pointing the weapon at people. Your not getting much benefit of the doubt in that situation if you are the suspect

Could you take a look at 6 and tell me that is acceptable?

#6 wasn't acceptable which is why he was arrested.

I am not on the jury and am not in a position to sentence these officers.

No but you seem ready to convict them without all the information....

The information recorded on the camera shows me these officers do not know how to approach a dangerous suspect because they are too ready to kill a citizen to prevent any possible, and not present, danger.

So how are you going to approach an armed subject?

By the way what you don't see are the 1000's of times officers stopped and arrested armed subjects and nobody was shot.

 

[ballen0351]

#5 the motorcycle accident-
This wasn't a cop shooting it just happened to be a cop that shot. This was an accident where the child was hit the rider (who happened to be a cop but was not acting in that capacity) is then approached by 2 or 3 adult males who were very angry and confronted the rider who was then according to him attacked and defended himself.

Now looking at your "evidence" you found a dozen examples over at least an 8 year period. How many arrests over that same 8 years nation wide ended with nobody being shot?

 

[Tez3]

A big reveal for me was Gang police.
While serving on a jury, I was privy to the methods officers employ with gang suspects. After listening to the stories, I could see through these ******** reasons for stopping citizens living in 'gang' neighborhoods. It disgusted me so that I lost almost all trust in anyone assigned to gang division.

Another big reveal for me is DEA agents.
Cash and property seizures under some of the most ******** reasons I have ever read. And almost no method available to return the goods to the citizen.

You were on jury service so from which side of the case did you 'learn' these things...the prosecution or the defence?
Have you ever considered thinking about it from these officers viewpoint? What it is like to police such difficult areas? There are no perfect police anywhere but doing a difficult dangerous and in most cases thankless job... as in you jumping to conclusions about videos etc. and always blaming the police officers is ridiculous. I think you need to do some serious research..not You Tube! if you insist on judging the police in situations you have never experienced.

 

[TieXiongJi]

#5 the motorcycle accident-
This wasn't a cop shooting it just happened to be a cop that shot. This was an accident where the child was hit the rider (who happened to be a cop but was not acting in that capacity) is then approached by 2 or 3 adult males who were very angry and confronted the rider who was then according to him attacked and defended himself.

Now looking at your "evidence" you found a dozen examples over at least an 8 year period. How many arrests over that same 8 years nation wide ended with nobody being shot?

I am not performing case studies on each event. I did a quick search and watched some videos. News commentary on some of the videos only gets me so far. My research time between posts is maybe 10 minutes. Tough to keep a conversation going if I stop posting for 3 days to gather perfect evidence.
I am doing my best to act as a representative of the public discussing what the public sees. I understand some of you are officers, some are supporters.
I could table the topic for a week and come back with a single story that is well written and researched. Good/bad idea?

Is anyone claiming the police are never wrong? Please submit your version of a bad cop and maybe we can move forward.

I feel like I am the only one attempting to make the argument that people in a position of power need to be monitored, checked and sometimes removed.

 

[ballen0351]

I am not performing case studies on each event.

No but you are condemning an entire profession

I did a quick search and watched some videos. News commentary on some of the videos only gets me so far. My research time between posts is maybe 10 minutes.

Well the time the officers had in life or death confrontation was seconds so....

Tough to keep a conversation going if I stop posting for 3 days to gather perfect evidence.

No but I would prefer you at east attempt to have an objective look at what your posting.

I am doing my best to act as a representative of the public discussing what the public sees.

I didn't realize you were nominated to speak for them. Congrats

I understand some of you are officers, some are supporters.
I could table the topic for a week and come back with a single story that is well written and researched. Good/bad idea?

Its an internet forum you can do whatever you want

Is anyone claiming the police are never wrong? Please submit your version of a bad cop and maybe we can move forward.

I dont believe anyone said police were never wrong. Ive been a cop for a long time I've gotten bad cops fired and Ive arrested some as well but the % is very low

I feel like I am the only one attempting to make the argument that people in a position of power need to be monitored, checked and sometimes removed.

except thats not the argument your making. Your argument is all cops are bad, too quick to kill, and you walk around in constant fear of police

 

[TieXiongJi]

Wow. Ok...

No but you are condemning an entire profession

Sorry if that is the meaning you received. I am not saying all cops are bad. I am attempting to be more subtle than that.

Well the time the officers had in life or death confrontation was seconds so....

And it is the same situation for many of the suspects.

No but I would prefer you at east attempt to have an objective look at what your posting.

Well, there is no such thing as objective as everything can only be viewed in a relative manner. I try to see the case from both sides, but when the suspect side is more convincing, I have to side with the suspect.

I didn't realize you were nominated to speak for them. Congrats

No one else is making the case, so the only one doing so becomes the leader. True in every situation.

Its an internet forum you can do whatever you want

Thanks for the quip. Didn't improve the situation.

I dont believe anyone said police were never wrong. Ive been a cop for a long time I've gotten bad cops fired and Ive arrested some as well but the % is very low

I am glad to hear that, brother. I want corruption out of every system. Glad to hear you are one of the good ones.

except thats not the argument your making. Your argument is all cops are bad, too quick to kill, and you walk around in constant fear of police

Again, disagree. All cops are not bad; never claimed so. As you know, some cops are bad, some cops take bribes, some cops use their power in personal ways which ends up tainting the public view. I am not against cops, some of my friends are cops! (LOL, I feel like I am being accused of being racist.)

 

[ballen0351]

Wow. Ok...


Sorry if that is the meaning you received. I am not saying all cops are bad. I am attempting to be more subtle than that.

Well when you post comments like this it does give that impression:
"Watch out for US police training. It trains you to fear everything"
"I am not an officer and couldn't join their group. You know they try not to hire smart people?"
"My current strategy for police is completely avoid contact or completely comply so they don't shoot me"
"We have a serious police training problem in the US"

And it is the same situation for many of the suspects.

No usually the officer is playing catch up in these situations.

Well, there is no such thing as objective as everything can only be viewed in a relative manner. I try to see the case from both sides, but when the suspect side is more convincing, I have to side with the suspect.

Ok how about less bias. 1 of the videos you picked as police abuse the officer was arrested, another was the result of a traffic accident of a person that just happened to be a cop it had nothing to do with his job, Another example the BART shooting that officer was convicted and jailed and during the trial it was shown the "victim" wasn't shot execution style as the headline suggested he was actively resisting. The Chicago case you posted that officer was also arrested.

No one else is making the case, so the only one doing so becomes the leader. True in every situation.

If that makes you feel better ok

Thanks for the quip. Didn't improve the situation.

wasnt a quip I am serious this is a martial arfs forum not testimony in front of congress if you want to take a week and gather your thoughts go for it.

I am glad to hear that, brother. I want corruption out of every system. Glad to hear you are one of the good ones.

Im not a "good"one Im a normal one just like most of us on the street

 

[Tez3]

Tough to keep a conversation going if I stop posting for 3 days to gather perfect evidence.

if you look on here you will see some threads have been going for years. It's a site where people prefer if you are stating something other than your opinion that you back it up with facts rather than conjecture or random thoughts. In many ways it's quite an academic site, posters appreciate a well thought out argument with citations to show where they get their facts and thoughts from. You can write long posts if you wish, preferably in paragraphs to make it easier to read on screen.

I try to see the case from both sides, but when the suspect side is more convincing, I have to side with the suspect

the problem is that you aren't actually seeing either side, what you are watching are videos and reading reports which will never, in fact they can't show all the facts. There is much you are missing so it's impossible for you to know or even accurately guess what happened. You said you'd been on a jury, this is probably the last place to get an unbiased account of events, the defence barrister wants you to believe their client is innocent and has been set up by the police, the prosecutor is hampered by legal rules that stop her/him showing you the previous crimes and behaviour of the defendant among other things.

My research time between posts is maybe 10 minutes.

I'm sorry but if you are going to malign anyone or even extol their virtues 10 minutes research isn't even going to break the surface. If you are going to discuss how the police behave, what you think is wrong and do it 'as a member of the community...bearing in mind MT is an international community, then you need to give good, logical compelling evidence with citations.

 

[TieXiongJi]

Well when you post comments like this it does give that impression:
"Watch out for US police training. It trains you to fear everything"
"I am not an officer and couldn't join their group. You know they try not to hire smart people?"
"My current strategy for police is completely avoid contact or completely comply so they don't shoot me"
"We have a serious police training problem in the US"

Take me out of context and you can make me sound worse than Hitler.

No usually the officer is playing catch up in these situations.

Sure, but sometimes the officer is the first to use aggression. I completely disagree with initiating violent force. How can you know he will punch you until he swings?

Ok how about less bias. 1 of the videos you picked as police abuse the officer was arrested, another was the result of a traffic accident of a person that just happened to be a cop it had nothing to do with his job, Another example the BART shooting that officer was convicted and jailed and during the trial it was shown the "victim" wasn't shot execution style as the headline suggested he was actively resisting. The Chicago case you posted that officer was also arrested.

I already conceded on the video where the officer was arrested. Like I said, 10-15 minutes to gather proof when I start with a vague memory? Search "Police Shooting" on YouTube and you get much more hits against police than supporting police.
I hadn't seen the update, but the suspect is resisting while the officer has a pistol on his spine with additional officers around. Not a lot of perceived danger from my perspective. And he was arrested because it was obviously suspect of wrong doing.

If that makes you feel better ok

Feel better about what? Having a conversation? Yes, I feel good about conversation and understanding other perspectives. If I didn't have this conversation, then I am just talking in my own head. I would imagine you would be pleased that I am even engaging instead of protesting.

wasnt a quip I am serious this is a martial arfs forum not testimony in front of congress if you want to take a week and gather your thoughts go for it.

Yes, of course, but I am in an active conversation. Stopping it for research time detracts from the central thesis because the people I am conversing with may not remember the context of the conversation, have to reread tons of material again...

Im not a "good"one Im a normal one just like most of us on the street

I am glad you believe a good one is the average. Every population can be represented with a Bell curve. You will have exemplary officers and absolutely horrible officers. When the absolutely horrible officers breach critical mass, the system collapses. Again, expressing my opinions based on my perspective. I can't escape my perspective even while reading another's perspective.

Thanks for having a back and forth with me.

 

[TieXiongJi]

if you look on here you will see some threads have been going for years. It's a site where people prefer if you are stating something other than your opinion that you back it up with facts rather than conjecture or random thoughts. In many ways it's quite an academic site, posters appreciate a well thought out argument with citations to show where they get their facts and thoughts from. You can write long posts if you wish, preferably in paragraphs to make it easier to read on screen.

This is a conversation forum, not a Research Journal. I will take the advice and do better.

the problem is that you aren't actually seeing either side, what you are watching are videos and reading reports which will never, in fact they can't show all the facts. There is much you are missing so it's impossible for you to know or even accurately guess what happened. You said you'd been on a jury, this is probably the last place to get an unbiased account of events, the defence barrister wants you to believe their client is innocent and has been set up by the police, the prosecutor is hampered by legal rules that stop her/him showing you the previous crimes and behaviour of the defendant among other things.

It sounds like you are saying, "Don't share your opinion without a huge amount of evidence." I really hope not, but that is how it came across.
I understand the competition and did my best to read the evidence and not condemn a man to prison over a confused, brash situation.

I'm sorry but if you are going to malign anyone or even extol their virtues 10 minutes research isn't even going to break the surface. If you are going to discuss how the police behave, what you think is wrong and do it 'as a member of the community...bearing in mind MT is an international community, then you need to give good, logical compelling evidence with citations.

Obviously my opinion is not based on 10 minutes of research. My opinions have been developed over my entire life. The 10 minutes of research was to dig up videos and some quick references. I didn't swing from trusting police to distrusting police in 10 minutes.

 

[ballen0351]

Take me out of context and you can make me sound worse than Hitler.

Your words own them.

Sure, but sometimes the officer is the first to use aggression. I completely disagree with initiating violent force. How can you know he will punch you until he swings?

We are not talking about a black eye. We are talking about not going home to your family. If you screw up and get punched it sucks but your prob. not going to die.

So in your opinion should police wait until someone is actively shooting at them before they return fire?

I already conceded on the video where the officer was arrested. Like I said, 10-15 minutes to gather proof when I start with a vague memory?

Yes you conceded to 1 what about the other 2 that the officers were arrested?

Search "Police Shooting" on YouTube and you get much more hits against police than supporting police.

Why do you think that is? Could it be it fits the agenda better? You posted 8 or 9 videos so far and almost all of them are not what you thought they were. Perhaps you should stop getting your "facts" from youtube.

I hadn't seen the update, but the suspect is resisting while the officer has a pistol on his spine with additional officers around. Not a lot of perceived danger from my perspective. And he was arrested because it was obviously suspect of wrong doing.

He was reaching into his waist band acting like he was going to pull a gun according to several people (that were not officers) that were watching. The officer ordered him several times to remove his hands and he refused. The officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the jury found the victim played a roll in his death.

Feel better about what? Having a conversation? Yes, I feel good about conversation and understanding other perspectives. If I didn't have this conversation, then I am just talking in my own head. I would imagine you would be pleased that I am even engaging instead of protesting.

Protests = Overtime. Protest away I enjoy the extra $$$$

Yes, of course, but I am in an active conversation. Stopping it for research time detracts from the central thesis because the people I am conversing with may not remember the context of the conversation, have to reread tons of material again...

ok

I am glad you believe a good one is the average. Every population can be represented with a Bell curve. You will have exemplary officers and absolutely horrible officers. When the absolutely horrible officers breach critical mass, the system collapses. Again, expressing my opinions based on my perspective. I can't escape my perspective even while reading another's perspective.
.

The Problem is the information you are using to form you perspective is so flawed. The actual stats of police use of force data don't support your beliefs. You can have any belief you want. There are people that believe one group of people is better than another based only on skin color but that too is wrong and misinformed....

 

[Tez3]

Stopping it for research time detracts from the central thesis because the people I am conversing with may not remember the context of the conversation, have to reread tons of material again...

Excuse me? who exactly do you think we are? I think most of us can remember a little more than just our names.

How can you know he will punch you until he swings?

because he has a criminal record of violence as long as your arm?

Take me out of context and you can make me sound worse than Hitler.

Inappropriate especially on Holocaust Remembrance day.

This is a conversation forum, not a Research Journal

Remind me how long you've been here again? You have made several statements that could be taken as inflammatory and perhaps even libelous if we were minded to sue, so to be back up those statements you really need more than 'oh it's conversation' I'm afraid. You will also find that this is actually more like a research journal if you chose to browse through the posts and articles here. A lot of what we discuss and debate is far more than just 'conversation. This isn't FB.
Ballen has been very patient answering you, you could do him the courtesy in return of researching and citing your sources for your statements on the police.

 

[TieXiongJi]

We are not talking about a black eye. We are talking about not going home to your family. If you screw up and get punched it sucks but your prob. not going to die.

Every day, every person alive is at risk of not going home to our family. The police sign up to be Public Servants knowing the risks of the job. If the officer is too afraid to ensure the citizen's safety over their own, they should not be an officer.

So in your opinion should police wait until someone is actively shooting at them before they return fire?

Actively shooting? No. Gun in hand? Yes.

Yes you conceded to 1 what about the other 2 that the officers were arrested?

First time I saw the new info was from you. I agree the incident fails as a proper example of police failing to police themselves since the officer was investigated, indicted and judged. The incident becomes an example of what not to do. I am happy to concede on this.

Why do you think that is? Could it be it fits the agenda better? You posted 8 or 9 videos so far and almost all of them are not what you thought they were. Perhaps you should stop getting your "facts" from youtube.

Perhaps I should spend more time before posting here, but you asked me for videos showing examples of those scenarios. Did my best to get it up quickly. Won't do it again, ok?

He was reaching into his waist band acting like he was going to pull a gun according to several people (that were not officers) that were watching. The officer ordered him several times to remove his hands and he refused. The officer was convicted of involuntary manslaughter because the jury found the victim played a roll in his death.

I don't want to debate details that neither of us can verify other than witness testimony which is known as some of the worst evidence, which you as an officer should know.
This is my last comment on that video.
Did he have a gun? No. Was he covered by more than 1 officer? Yes. Could he fire a gun at an officer while his hand is in his pants? No without injuring himself, which is not impossible, but not likely based on the average human.
He would have had to been completely insane to attempt to pull a gun while having a pistol in his back and multiple officers both holding him and watching him.

Protests = Overtime. Protest away I enjoy the extra $$$$

Ok. I am happy you support the 1st amendment, but I prefer there is no need to protest police.

The Problem is the information you are using to form you perspective is so flawed. The actual stats of police use of force data don't support your beliefs. You can have any belief you want. There are people that believe one group of people is better than another based only on skin color but that too is wrong and misinformed....

I know the statistics show that my safety is nearly guaranteed. We have gone over this in earlier posts. Tons of factors involved in any one person's chance of a fatal encounter.
I am doing my best to understand why the US police need to kill so many citizens when compared to other modern nations.
Simply search 'Public trust in police' to see that my concerns are shared by many others. I am happy to have a conversation with a real officer so I can read your personal opinions. News interviews are pathetic and don't get any real detail or discuss uncomfortable topics.

 

[TieXiongJi]

Excuse me? who exactly do you think we are? I think most of us can remember a little more than just our names.

Haha. Yes, of course you are not simpletons. But as a discussion drags on for weeks and months, the participants stop communicating and the conversation fizzles.

because he has a criminal record of violence as long as your arm?

Who has a criminal record? Is that a joke? Sorry, missed it.

Inappropriate especially on Holocaust Remembrance day.

I didn't even know that was a thing! Thank you. 1/27/17.

Remind me how long you've been here again? You have made several statements that could be taken as inflammatory and perhaps even libelous if we were minded to sue, so to be back up those statements you really need more than 'oh it's conversation' I'm afraid. You will also find that this is actually more like a research journal if you chose to browse through the posts and articles here. A lot of what we discuss and debate is far more than just 'conversation. This isn't FB.
Ballen has been very patient answering you, you could do him the courtesy in return of researching and citing your sources for your statements on the police.

LOL, now I know you are messing with me.
Inflammatory, libelous, sue? If our courts would take this conversation and require that I pay money for sharing an opinion, then we have lost our constitution. It is not impossible to find a lawyer that would take it on, but finding a judge that wouldn't shut the suit down immediately would be amazing.
I have been explaining myself to Ballen all day. What more do you want? If you want me out for attempting to have an honest conversation, then I am happy to leave. I don't want to be a part of that community.

 

[ballen0351]

Actively shooting? No. Gun in hand? Yes.

So how long would it take you to go from holding a gun to shooting someone? 1/2 second? 1 second?
As I said the Police are on the defense always playing catch up. So it takes you a second to raise and shoot me.
Now your me how long does it take to identify the gun, identify you now pointing the gun, register that your now shooting at me, decide on the proper response, and then preform that response, all while you are shooting me

First time I saw the new info was from you. I agree the incident fails as a proper example of police failing to police themselves since the officer was investigated, indicted and judged. The incident becomes an example of what not to do. I am happy to concede on this.

Except the info was readily available Ive never looked into that case until you posted it. It took me a 30 sec google search to find out the rest of the story. If you are going to present information to argue your point it generally helps to make sure the information actually helps your position

Perhaps I should spend more time before posting here, but you asked me for videos showing examples of those scenarios. Did my best to get it up quickly. Won't do it again, ok?

I assumed when you 1sr described the incidents you listed you already had the incidents in mind I didn't realize you were just making things up as you go.

I don't want to debate details that neither of us can verify other than witness testimony which is known as some of the worst evidence, which you as an officer should know.

Well for starters it was easily verifiable go watch news report of the trial thats what I did. Also you do understand Witness testimony is perfectly acceptable evidence correct? Id rather discuss witness testimony then edited and bias Youtube clips with no context, back story, or conclusions,

This is my last comment on that video.
Did he have a gun? No. Was he covered by more than 1 officer? Yes. Could he fire a gun at an officer while his hand is in his pants? No without injuring himself, which is not impossible, but not likely based on the average human.
He would have had to been completely insane to attempt to pull a gun while having a pistol in his back and multiple officers both holding him and watching him.

He already was completely insane fighting on a train and then fighting with police officers, and hiding his hands in his dip area where everyone knows thats the #1 place to hide a gun and then refuse to show his hands.

I know the statistics show that my safety is nearly guaranteed. We have gone over this in earlier posts.

Which is why your fear is irrational

I am doing my best to understand why the US police need to kill so many citizens when compared to other modern nations.

So how many of these deaths are not justified?

Simply search 'Public trust in police' to see that my concerns are shared by many others. I am happy to have a conversation with a real officer so I can read your personal opinions. .

I can search for anything and find people that believe its true, That doesn't make it true.
Pleanty of people believe in the "no touch knockout" too....

 

[ballen0351]

If our courts would take this conversation and require that I pay money for sharing an opinion, then we have lost our constitution. It is not impossible to find a lawyer that would take it on, but finding a judge that wouldn't shut the suit down immediately would be amazing.
.

Tez isnt from the US so the Constitution doesnt apply to her, However, and far be it for me to speak for her but I believe its the middle of the night where she is now but trust me she is capable of defending herself, but whats she is basically saying is on this forum are several people with expertise in all forms of combat, martial arts, physics, law, psychology, there are Doctors, nurses, lawyers, police, military, nuclear engineers, and pretty much any other jobs. This page has amazing minds and really interesting conversations so it would benefit you to make a well thought out argument and provide fact based information to support your opinions. The rest of us try and we would appreciate it if you would as well.

 

[jks9199]

I am not performing case studies on each event. I did a quick search and watched some videos. News commentary on some of the videos only gets me so far. My research time between posts is maybe 10 minutes. Tough to keep a conversation going if I stop posting for 3 days to gather perfect evidence.
I am doing my best to act as a representative of the public discussing what the public sees. I understand some of you are officers, some are supporters.
I could table the topic for a week and come back with a single story that is well written and researched. Good/bad idea?

Is anyone claiming the police are never wrong? Please submit your version of a bad cop and maybe we can move forward.

I feel like I am the only one attempting to make the argument that people in a position of power need to be monitored, checked and sometimes removed.

It took me a matter of minutes to do a search on the first two (I stopped after that), and get some details. Dillon Taylor died as officers responded to a caller who described a group of suspicious people, possibly gang members. There was a detailed description of clothing and behavior and the officer was on scene almost immediately, observing behavior and clothing consistent with the report. After review, the Salt Lake City prosecutor found the shooting justified based on the totality of the circumstances, though clearly there were things that could have been done differently. The second had huge size disparity as well as failing to obey commands, and reaching into a car (where he could have a gun...).Why isn't he complying? What's going on with him... You might want to watch the murder of Deputy Kyle Dinkheller. As noted, Michael Slager was fired and charged; the retrial is pending.

I didn't go through all of your "examples"; in part I got turned off as soon as I started seeing the same "news" source with a clear bias, kind of like pulling information from Amnesty International on the use of the Taser or Greenpeace on the fishing industry... A few minutes research would have pulled up more.

The Washington Post did an extensive piece on police shootings. It has more info that you managed to amass here. I don't agree with all the conclusions they make -- but you'll find that most police shootings are clearly justifiable.