The Shooting of Alton Sterling

[Malintent]

If any of the posters in these types of threads that ask "couldn't the cop have done X, instead of shoot", spend a day as a cop, they would probably get themselves, or even several bystanders, killed, like immediately.

I know someone who spent over 15 months patrolling in a war zone. And he is consistent in his view that if he or his patrol mates acted like some of these officers while on patrol, they'd have been immediately punished for disobeying orders. And they were subjected to bombings and shootings on a routine basis.

But your post and the posts of the other unthinking apologists for the police are evidence of the unthinking deference the police receive by the general public and the legal system.

The police have a difficult and dangerous job. It is becoming more dangerous in part because, as a group, they are losing the respect and trust of a growing portion of the civilian community. This is a legacy of the unthinking deference. The cure is not more deference but to re-engage critical deference. Until that happens, this cycle of violence is going to get worse, not better.

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are... but that is an admission that the "streets" are a "war zone". so the "problem" is with the "combatants" (citizens), after all (since it is, apparently, a war zone out there)?

 

[laughing dog]

I know someone who spent over 15 months patrolling in a war zone. And he is consistent in his view that if he or his patrol mates acted like some of these officers while on patrol, they'd have been immediately punished for disobeying orders. And they were subjected to bombings and shootings on a routine basis.

But your post and the posts of the other unthinking apologists for the police are evidence of the unthinking deference the police receive by the general public and the legal system.

The police have a difficult and dangerous job. It is becoming more dangerous in part because, as a group, they are losing the respect and trust of a growing portion of the civilian community. This is a legacy of the unthinking deference. The cure is not more deference but to re-engage critical deference. Until that happens, this cycle of violence is going to get worse, not better.

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are... but that is an admission that the "streets" are a "war zone". so the "problem" is with the "combatants" (citizens), after all (since it is, apparently, a war zone out there)?

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

 

[ksen]

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are...

You should be.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are...

You should be.

Replace "Protect and Serve" with "Kill"

 

[Toni]

I know someone who spent over 15 months patrolling in a war zone. And he is consistent in his view that if he or his patrol mates acted like some of these officers while on patrol, they'd have been immediately punished for disobeying orders. And they were subjected to bombings and shootings on a routine basis.

But your post and the posts of the other unthinking apologists for the police are evidence of the unthinking deference the police receive by the general public and the legal system.

The police have a difficult and dangerous job. It is becoming more dangerous in part because, as a group, they are losing the respect and trust of a growing portion of the civilian community. This is a legacy of the unthinking deference. The cure is not more deference but to re-engage critical deference. Until that happens, this cycle of violence is going to get worse, not better.

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are... but that is an admission that the "streets" are a "war zone". so the "problem" is with the "combatants" (citizens), after all (since it is, apparently, a war zone out there)?

I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the idea that police be trained like soldiers. Their tasks, their missions are diametrically opposed. Police are supposed to protect and to serve the populace; they are supposed to be part of the community.

Ideally, their job would require only very limited use of firearms and certainly at a far lower rate than is currently the practice in the US. Is it doable? Well, most of Europe seems to be able to make it work.

The implementation of the 1033 program has served primarily to escalate violence rather than subdue it.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033-program-264537


https://www.propublica.org/article/the-best-reporting-on-the-federal-push-to-militarize-local-police

Militarization isn’t just changing the tools police officers use, but how they relate to communities they serve.Investigative reporter Radley Balko told Vice that police officers are often isolated from the communities they work in. “I think a much deeper problem is the effect all of this war talk and battle rhetoric has had on policing as a profession,” Balko said in an interview. “In much of the country today, police officers are psychologically isolated from the communities they serve.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/us/in-washington-second-thoughts-on-arming-police.html?_r=0


http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6003239/police-militarization-in-ferguson

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/07/militarization-local-police-america

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are... but that is an admission that the "streets" are a "war zone". so the "problem" is with the "combatants" (citizens), after all (since it is, apparently, a war zone out there)?

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

 

[Bronzeage]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

Because we give them special leniency when they actually shoot someone.

 

[Toni]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

I'd be happy if we just held police to the same standards of use of force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2015/04/11/thousands-dead-few-prosecuted/?tid=a_inl

As of 15 months ago, 54 police officers had been charged in fatal shootings in the previous decade.

And when they are convicted or plead guilty, they’ve tended to get little time behind bars, on average four years and sometimes only weeks

Two Atlanta plainclothes officers opened fire and killed a 92-year-old woman during a mistaken drug raid on her home. As they pried the bars off her front door, she fired a single warning shot with an old revolver. The police responded by smashing the door down and shooting at her 39 times. One of the officers tried to disguise their error by planting bags of marijuana in her basement. The two officers pleaded guilty and received unusually stiff sentences of six and 10 years in a federal prison.

 

[Arctish]

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

I'll let Captain Tag Gleason of the Seattle Police Department, writing for The Police Chief magazine, answer this one:

Police officers are held to a higher standard of behavior by society, because they are stewards of the public trust and are empowered to apply force and remove constitutional privileges when lawfully justified. They take an oath of office, are expected to comply with professional codes of ethics, and are subject to various laws, rules, and regulations.

Also:

The police agency and its members must be viewed as fair if the community is going to consider the department a legitimate authority. Fairness is usually defined as the equal treatment of people in similar circumstances. Another definition is that each individual action—or inaction—by a police professional done to a member of the community defines fairness or justice to that individual and, over time, defines what fairness and justice mean to that community. The more that people perceive the police as acting fairly or justly, the more legitimate the police function and the individual police professional become.

Acting ethically is fundamental to acting fairly. Acting fairly equates with acting consistently with the social contract, the implicit agreement between the government (the police as part of the executive branch) and the people, addressing mutual rights, responsibilities, and expectations. The police derive their duty to uphold the public trust from the social contract.

The social contract means that the people have entrusted some freedoms to the government, including the police, in exchange for the government’s safeguarding it. Police professionals are expected to be stewards of this public trust and to act in a way that respects the government’s founding principles. For U.S. police departments, these founding principles are described in the founding documents of the United States, which should be a cornerstone of ethics training for U.S. police professionals.

The Random Dumbass Standard does not apply to cops. As professional LEOs they are held to a higher one.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

Holding them to the same standard as civilians would be a higher one than they are held to now. But to answer your question, police officers are compensated trained professional agents of the state who are entrusted with greater responsibilities and duties than civilians.

What I would like to know is why we can demand that soldiers in a war zone withhold fire until someone is pointing a weapon at them but not expect a police officer in the USA in noncombat zones to withhold fire until someone has a weapon in hand. I realize this is hard for you and the other kneejerk apologists for police force, but Tamir Rice would probably be alive today if those two police officers had been taught to withhold fire until a weapon was in hand. The fact that that child is dead is a real tragedy. The fact that neither officer has been held accountable in any way is a disgrace to humanity.

 

[Malintent]

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are... but that is an admission that the "streets" are a "war zone". so the "problem" is with the "combatants" (citizens), after all (since it is, apparently, a war zone out there)?

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

I agree with that as well... (except the claim that I missed the point)... Perhaps you missed my point that the training a soldier has versus the training a cop has is quite radically different... and there is your difference in quality.

 

[Malintent]

I am not opposed to the idea that police should be trained more like how soldiers are...

You should be.

...by "trained more like soldiers" I (thought obviously) was referring to the post I quoted that referenced the will and discipline of a soldier to hold fire until rules of engagement are met, without endangering themselves... through rigorous training.

Why a couple of people thought that meant "Kill better" may speak more to their mindset than mine.

 

[ksen]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

I agree with that as well... (except the claim that I missed the point)... Perhaps you missed my point that the training a soldier has versus the training a cop has is quite radically different... and there is your difference in quality.

I see what you're saying here. I think the difference may not be so much the training of the line troops and police officers but is rather that military officers hold their soldiers accountable for disobeying the rules of engagement and the politicians hold the officers accountable for their men disobeying the rules of engagement. That doesn't seem to happen in police culture. When a police officer disregards his/her training and someone ends up dead there is often no accountability other than maybe administrative leave while an investigation to clear the offending police officer is conducted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You should be.

...by "trained more like soldiers" I (thought obviously) was referring to the post I quoted that referenced the will and discipline of a soldier to hold fire until rules of engagement are met, without endangering themselves... through rigorous training.

So people just get a badge and gun and become a police officer with no training? Officers are safer now on the streets than they have been in decades even despite the very recent increase in targeted killings of officers.

 

[atrib]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

Why should the police be held to a higher standard on the use of force than civilians are?

Because they are trained professionals with a sworn duty to protect and serve the communities they police. Because, as part of their job, it is expected they will have to deal with multiple scenarios that pose a threat of harm to the persons they protect or to themselves, scenarios they are usually trained to handle with the least harm to all involved. Because, they are the official representatives of our government tasked with upholding the law and protecting and serving their communities. Do you really have to ask this question.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual you miss the point. If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

I agree with that as well... (except the claim that I missed the point)... Perhaps you missed my point that the training a soldier has versus the training a cop has is quite radically different... and there is your difference in quality.

No you missed the point. If anything, one would expect the police (who are mostly dealing with civilians in non-combat and non-war zones) to be better trained and educated to handle such situations than soldiers who are mostly dealing with combat situations when it comes to potential shootings. But yet the opposite is true. And it is true because the public CONTINUES to implicitly allows it either through ignorance or indifference or fear.

 

[Malintent]

I agree with that as well... (except the claim that I missed the point)... Perhaps you missed my point that the training a soldier has versus the training a cop has is quite radically different... and there is your difference in quality.

No you missed the point. If anything, one would expect the police (who are mostly dealing with civilians in non-combat and non-war zones) to be better trained and educated to handle such situations than soldiers who are mostly dealing with combat situations when it comes to potential shootings. But yet the opposite is true. And it is true because the public CONTINUES to implicitly allows it either through ignorance or indifference or fear.

No. I am confident I understand what you are saying.. and I mostly agree.. That you insist I miss the point, while mostly agreeing with you, speaks more of your bias in these conversations (and reading comprehension).

you appear to be a contrarian, whereby you rather have a fight than a discussion... So, whatever.. think what you want. It's a free world, even for the obtuse.

 

[laughing dog]

No you missed the point. If anything, one would expect the police (who are mostly dealing with civilians in non-combat and non-war zones) to be better trained and educated to handle such situations than soldiers who are mostly dealing with combat situations when it comes to potential shootings. But yet the opposite is true. And it is true because the public CONTINUES to implicitly allows it either through ignorance or indifference or fear.

No. I am confident I understand what you are saying.. and I mostly agree.. That you insist I miss the point, while mostly agreeing with you, speaks more of your bias in these conversations (and reading comprehension).

Your confidence is not supported by the record.

you appear to be a contrarian, whereby you rather have a fight than a discussion... So, whatever.. think what you want.

This is yet another example of you missing the point.

It's a free world, even for the obtuse.

And the irony-impaired.

 

[Derec]

You were talking about protests in general, which would certainly include historical protests, and making #BLM out to be something unique in this regard.

No, I was talking about #BLM having a monopoly on blocking highways, which is present tense. I am aware this tactic was used in the past, but in present day it is pretty much limited to #BLM and related groups.
Would you be as supportive if pro-life or anti-gay groups adopted these tactics? Would you be as understanding if your commute was 90 minutes longer if National Association for Marriage for example decided to block the highway you use to get to work?

It is not unique in this regard, so you were either speaking from a position of ignorance, or one of deliberate disinformation. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by picking the former, but if you want it to be the latter, that is fine by me.

No, you misunderstood what I was saying.

Okay, then, go ahead and name one other protest movement that is prevalent across the US at the present time.]

What about pro-life movement? They have huge annual rallies in DC but they do not burn down stores, or block highways or anything like that.

Yes, because that is all it would be for me, an inconvenience. Sitting in traffic is an inconvenience that I experience several times a week during my commute to and from work. I generally just try to relax and get an extra chapter or two in on the audio book to which I am listening at the time.

Do you realize the difference between something that happens by itself due to volume or due to accidents and deliberate actions designed to impede both personal, commercial and emergency vehicle traffic? What if somebody dies during one of these blockades?
By the way, #BLM blocked I35W, like back in the Michael Brown protest days.
Protesters shut down I-35W in Minneapolis during rush hour; 41 arrested
This is an organized effort. Loretta Lynch should consider RICOing these idiots. Interstate commerce clause should apply when blocking interstate highways.

 

[Malintent]

No. I am confident I understand what you are saying.. and I mostly agree.. That you insist I miss the point, while mostly agreeing with you, speaks more of your bias in these conversations (and reading comprehension).

Your confidence is not supported by the record.

you appear to be a contrarian, whereby you rather have a fight than a discussion... So, whatever.. think what you want.

This is yet another example of you missing the point.

It's a free world, even for the obtuse.

And the irony-impaired.

"the record"? lol. "the record" is this thread (and related threads). you are free to quote an example, but seem to have chosen not to. Curious, that. Where did I say that I disagree that soldiers are more highly trained than cops, and that lack of discipline contributes to failures in engagement? Or, regarding what I replied to you about...

If soldiers in a war zone are expected to withhold their fire unless they are in obvious danger, it is not too much to expect police in civilized society to hold their fire until a suspect has a weapon in hand.

..Did you intend to mean something other than what you said?