Regarding the debate over the police use of force:

[Moonbeam]

In threads about police shootings, two sides commonly appear: The police use of force is excessive and they have to use it to save their own or bystanders lives.

The answer to this dilemma surely has a fair minded answer:

The laws governing when the police can use force should be changed so that half of the time the people on whom the force is authorized die but restrain police such that the other half of the time it is the policeman that dies. This way the number of innocents that die can be evenly shared satisfying the sense of fairness each side of the debate hold.

 

[Muse]

This is what? A medieval assessment of fair balance? Some kind of modern sense of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (which incidentally comes from the Bible)?

No legislation is going to make that happen, and besides, every time a cop dies they make a big deal out of it, parades of cops come from all over.

I think cops should be required to have an education in psychology commensurate with and amounting to a degree. They should all be professionals in deescalation. They should also be committed to using deadly force only AS A LAST RESORT. To a man/woman. Every one should have a well developed sense of compassion. Tests can be developed that insure this. Absent those characteristics they should absolutely be denied having a badge.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is what? A medieval assessment of fair balance? Some kind of modern sense of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (which incidentally comes from the Bible)?

No legislation is going to make that happen, and besides, every time a cop dies they make a big deal out of it, parades of cops come from all over.

I think cops should be required to have an education in psychology commensurate with and amounting to a degree. They should all be professionals in deescalation. They should also be committed to using deadly force only AS A LAST RESORT. To a man/woman. Every one should have a well developed sense of compassion. Tests can be developed that insure this. Absent those characteristics they should absolutely be denied having a badge.

Just trying to apply what might pass for logic in reaching a balance between the most prevalent but divided points of view. But frankly, I can't see your proposal being much easier to achieve. I thought my proposal had in its favor no need for understanding psychology at all. Just twerk things so the deaths on each side start showing up statistically 50 50. That would end the argument that the negative consequences of the use of force falls only on one side.

Thank you for searching for something you feel might be better.

 

[Sunburn74]

The idea I've heard floated is raising the burden of proof for justifying police actions. The current burden of proof is basically some stuff from a 1960s supreme court case where essentially as long as other police officers thought it was reasonable in that instant, then the action would be justified. Its the reasonableness doctrine and its gotten us to this terrible point because you can get cops to basically call almost anything reasonable. For example, if I'm a cop and I see a guy with a phone and I shoot him because I thought it was a gun, nothing will happen because other cops will say it was reasonable to shoot him because you thought you saw a gun.

The burden of proof I've heard others float to replace the current standard is the correctness burden. The police officer has to be correct in his assessment and not just reasonable in his assessment. For example, if a cop shot a guy holding a cell phone because he thought it was a gun, the cop does not meet the correctness burden. It would basically force police officers to change their responses to most situations because there would be a new higher standard for acceptability of force that will not tolerate mistakes for fatal use of force. Its not enough to say "I was scared for my life" or "I saw a flash", it has to actually pan out when all the evidence is finally in that the police officer or others were facing an imminent deadly threat. What you'd see is officers taking more defensive positions for example when stopping people so that if the person does have a gun, they can be in a safe position as they definitively make that assessment. You'd see less aggressive tactics and more patient and non-lethal tactics (if you stun a guy and were wrong, at least you didn't kill him) as well.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yeah, you’ll get great applicants under that regime. If the numbers aren’t quite right do some commit seppuku? Kill a few extra arrestees?

This is a Solomon big brain solution without the twist.

 

[BoomerD]

This is what? A medieval assessment of fair balance? Some kind of modern sense of eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (which incidentally comes from the Bible)?

No legislation is going to make that happen, and besides, every time a cop dies they make a big deal out of it, parades of cops come from all over.

I think cops should be required to have an education in psychology commensurate with and amounting to a degree. They should all be professionals in deescalation. They should also be committed to using deadly force only AS A LAST RESORT. To a man/woman. Every one should have a well developed sense of compassion. Tests can be developed that insure this. Absent those characteristics they should absolutely be denied having a badge.

Look at how much people already bitch about paying school teachers...who, (rightly, I might add) think they're entitled to be paid fairly for their required degrees...and about how much cops already get paid. If you start requiring them to have something like a psychology degree...THEY'RE gonna start demanding higher pay...and rightly so...but the taxpayers aren't gonna like that much.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

In threads about police shootings, two sides commonly appear: The police use of force is excessive and they have to use it to save their own or bystanders lives.

The answer to this dilemma surely has a fair minded answer:

The laws governing when the police can use force should be changed so that half of the time the people on whom the force is authorized die but restrain police such that the other half of the time it is the policeman that dies. This way the number of innocents that die can be evenly shared satisfying the sense of fairness each side of the debate hold.

I have a better idea. Don't change the current system, but every cop only gets one shoot. One shoot and they aren't a cop anymore, anywhere. Includes armed security guard details. Not specifically as a punishment, but on the idea that 'violence begets violence', and to protect that officer from the kind of thing that happens to a person after killing another human (as well as anyone else around them affected by that). Note that I'm not saying don't prosecute for murder if the case dictates it, just that even good shoots, you get one.

 

[KMFJD]

nothing will be done until the police are actually held accountable for the shit they do , and that does not happen very often

New York City Paid an NBA Star Millions After an NYPD Officer Broke His Leg. The Officer Paid Little Price.

“When are people going to be held accountable?” asked NBA guard Thabo Sefolosha. A ProPublica review found New York has paid more than $1 billion in recent years to settle suits against officers, who are rarely punished.

www.propublica.org

 

[Moonbeam]

Yeah, you’ll get great applicants under that regime. If the numbers aren’t quite right do some commit seppuku? Kill a few extra arrestees?

This is a Solomon big brain solution without the twist.

Congratulations on your diagnosis, but how would this do as a twist? Black people, whenever one of their folk are wrongfully killed, get to pick somebody to legally kill the cop.

 

[Moonbeam]

What I hope to get at here is that the logical solution to problems is dependent on how they are framed. Take the prop 13 issue in California as an example.

Back a long time ago, because or rising property values in California, there was a tax revolt and the people of the state froze tax rates at a limit of one % rise per year for anybody owning at that time. That meant that taxes could rise on new sales at the astronomical rate of property value rise on new sales. The result is that one person can have a low tax rate and the neighbor has to pay vastly more. People who have that break and even new buyers are thus protected from ever increasing property values in the state with a result that those who already own want to keep their advantage and those who want to buy want the advantaged forced off their land so that high density housing can be built for those without homes. And the reason this is a problem is that everybody wants to life in the very places that are the most expensive to own because of desirability. So there is a war and either those who can't afford to buy or those who can't afford up to date taxes will be screwed by any change or preservation of legislation. There is no just answer.

But the reason for all of this is systemic. We have built a society the structure of which makes some places more desirable to live than others and the real solution is to do something about that.

So what systemic conditions create the notion that overwhelming force is the answer to control of the population? Can you see that any solution within those perimeters is insanity?

 

[Muse]

Daunte Wright, not the angel people make him out to be. Not saying he had it coming but he sure lived a life style that made his survival for long unlikely. This video's an eye opener:

 

[ivwshane]

Daunte Wright, not the angel people make him out to be. Not saying he had it coming but he sure lived a life style that made his survival for long unlikely. This video's an eye opener:

So violence against Americans by police is ok so long as the person isn’t perfect? Is that what you are saying?

Also, try using your own words instead of linking to YouTube videos.

 

[Muse]

So violence against Americans by police is ok so long as the person isn’t perfect? Is that what you are saying?

Also, try using your own words instead of linking to YouTube videos.

What kind of jack shit reply is that?

You don't know shit about me or my posting habits. Try refraining from ad hominem attacks. You attack me, not the message. Read post #2 above if you care to know my views on these matters.

Fact is not all blacks are all about being against police. This guy made the point that most of these police killings are of people who wouldn't be dead if they weren't so reckless. And more so, that the media should not portray the victims of police violence as blameless when they are not. Is that MY-OWN-WORDS enough for you? Did you watch the video? The portrayal of Daunte Wright in the media subsequent to his accidental killing by that veteran cop is highly inaccurate. Watch the video.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

This argument will never be won with words. You cannot argue something you've never faced first hand. No matter which action an officer takes, it could always be the wrong one. Suppose Tamir Rice had been a small adult and the weapon had been real. A moment's hesitation could cost an officer's life.

The case of the 16 year old girl waving a knife around that's in the news now. Should the officer have waited until she had killed someone?

That situation just happened in Texas on a traffic stop ... an officer was ambushed without a chance.

Read up on the case of Kentucky State Trooper Cameron Ponder.

There are no set answers.

They get slammed for use of force. They get killed when they don't use it.

Yes, there are excessively bad cops. German Bosque for one. There is also a story in the news recently about an officer in Washington state who has killed several and been cleared in all cases. Most officers never fire their sidearms off the range.

 

[ivwshane]

What kind of jack shit reply is that?

You don't know shit about me or my posting habits. Try refraining from ad hominem attacks. You attack me, not the message. Fact is not all blacks are all about being against police. This guy made the point that most of these police killings are of people who wouldn't be dead if they weren't so reckless. Is that MY-OWN-WORDS enough for you? Did you watch the video?

That would be using your own words and no I didn’t watch the video as I don’t watch random YouTube videos. Is there a reason this guy’s opinion in relevant other than it apparently mirrors your own?

 

[ivwshane]

This argument will never be won with words. You cannot argue something you've never faced first hand. No matter which action an officer takes, it could always be the wrong one. Suppose Tamir Rice had been a small adult and the weapon had been real. A moment's hesitation could cost an officer's life.

The case of the 16 year old girl waving a knife around that's in the news now. Should the officer have waited until she had killed someone?

That situation just happened in Texas on a traffic stop ... an officer was ambushed without a chance.

Read up on the case of Kentucky State Trooper Cameron Ponder.

There are no set answers.

They get slammed for use of force. They get killed when they don't use it.

Yes, there are excessively bad cops. German Bosque for one. There is also a story in the news recently about an officer in Washington state who has killed several and been cleared in all cases. Most officers never fire their sidearms off the range.

Just because you are incapable of imagining different outcomes/actions for the scenarios you highlighted doesn’t mean there were no other options.

Your Tamir rice is a good example as the situation and outcome could have been easily avoided had they not came flying in on the kid and immediately jumped out of the car guns blazing.

For the latest one, the girl with the knife could have just as easily been tased first.

 

[Muse]

That would be using your own words and no I didn’t watch the video as I don’t watch random YouTube videos. Is there a reason this guy’s opinion in relevant other than it apparently mirrors your own?

I never said for a goddamn second that the video mirrors my own opinion or even intimated that I have opinions at all concerning the things the video discusses. You come here not expecting to have videos suggested to you. Why don't you just read books? They say a picture's worth a thousand words. How about a video with thousands of pictures? Worth a millions of words, by deduction. But if you're not willing to look, it's worth nothing to you. This is no "random video." Your loss, dude.

Edit: This thread (read the title) is all about the debate over the police use of force. That is very much what that video addresses and it's presented by a guy who's very much in a position to know and he substantiates his positions. It's not inappropriate to post it here. You say it is inappropriate, however you didn't even bother to watch it, so STFU.

 

[ivwshane]

I never said for a goddamn second that the video mirrors my own opinion or even intimated that I have opinions at all concerning the things the video discusses. You come here not expecting to have videos suggested to you. Why don't you just read books?

Lol are you triggered bro? Stick with Facebook and Twitter if you want to post random videos.

 

[Muse]

Lol are you triggered bro? Stick with Facebook and Twitter if you want to post random videos.

That's no random video. Read my last just edited post for a fresh on point perspective on your refusal to even check it out. Your loss, man, tough.

 

[ivwshane]

Cool

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah, you’ll get great applicants under that regime. If the numbers aren’t quite right do some commit seppuku? Kill a few extra arrestees?

This is a Solomon big brain solution without the twist.

As it is being a policeman is a safe haven for white supremacists and those who desire to ruin peoples lives or want to hurt people...great applicants must apply........

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

This is why they have to be prepared --- always.

Man shot after opening fire on Birmingham police during drug search, chief says

The extent of his injuries wasn’t made public, but police said they did not appear to be life-threatening.

www.al.com

 

[WelshBloke]

In threads about police shootings, two sides commonly appear: The police use of force is excessive and they have to use it to save their own or bystanders lives.

The answer to this dilemma surely has a fair minded answer:

The laws governing when the police can use force should be changed so that half of the time the people on whom the force is authorized die but restrain police such that the other half of the time it is the policeman that dies. This way the number of innocents that die can be evenly shared satisfying the sense of fairness each side of the debate hold.

I don't think the police are going to go for that, you'd have to shoot a lot of them!

US police shootings: How many die each year?

How many police officers are killed in the US in a normal year? And how many people are killed by police?

www.bbc.com

 

[Stokely]

How about let's start with: stop turning off your bodycams right before the shit goes down. There's one reason only that you'd do something like that.

The police are trained to fear the public and assume that everyone is heavily armed and gunning for them. Perhaps this is more true in America, considering we are the only country with more guns than citizens. But this attitude is self-fulfilling, by being so quick to employ deadly force they turn the public against them.

Police culture needs to change. Much like the Catholic Church bends over backwards to protects it's pedo priests, the "bad apples" in the police force are protected by their brothers and especially the police associations. It's a military brotherhood mentality and the police seeing themselves as the military (and being armed like the military) doesn't help anything (IMO).

 

[ivwshane]

Things won’t change unless expectations change. Expect police to be held to higher standards and enact such policies, otherwise it’s just rage and lowered expectations.