Way too many citizens being killed by police!

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

This graph is overlooking a very important fact. America does not have a strong social safety net like other wealthy nations do.

This means there are two Americas: the wealthy America, and the impoverished America.

Most of these killings take place in the America that is impoverished.

It's unreasonable to compare the impoverished part of America to a wealthy country.

Off topic, but a similar error is made when people try to compare the high homicide rates in the impoverished sections of America to the low homicide rates in wealthy nations.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I see youre beginning to see some light. Ill not discourage attempts at actual knowledge. Carry on.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I've known of your ignorance and name-calling for many years now.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I stay very informed with current events.

I don't want to dox myself, but it's actually part of my job.

Notice that all the idiots here aren't even knowledgeable about the facts in these cases.

farmerman for example, has literally no idea what he's talking about. He hasn't even taken the time to view the readily able information.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

So your saying as long as police kill the impoverished but not rich whites its ok?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

No. What determines whether it is "OK" or "not OK" is whether or not it is justified self defense.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

So your saying as long as police kill the improvised but not rich whites its ok.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

No. I didn't say anything even remotely like that.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you’ve got a better suggestion, I’d love to hear it.

Mandatory body cameras that are on at start of shift and completely out of the control of the officer.
If the officer blocks camera or mutes it, they are terminated.

Get rid of qualified immunity. Cops need to be able to kill bad guys, but they also need to be held responsible for killing innocent people as well.

No knock warrants must become a thing of the past. There is no need for them and they serve no purpose.

Rid the police of military gear and return to community policing. Go back to the days of ADAM-12 where police knew the communities they served and were respected in return.

Form special units for handling gangs and other things of such need. They must be separate from Police and held to super high standards.

3 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix has specific reasonable steps to make things better.

I respect that.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Mandatory body cameras that are on at start of shift and completely out of the control of the officer.
If the officer blocks camera or mutes it, they are terminated.

I disagree.

As long as police officers are lynched for justifiably defending themselves, they need to be allowed to practice "Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up".

McGentrix wrote:

Get rid of qualified immunity. Cops need to be able to kill bad guys, but they also need to be held responsible for killing innocent people as well.

I don't think you understand what qualified immunity is. It protects cities from paying out damages when the police violate people's rights.

The only effect that ending it might have on police officers is if higher legal expenses prompted cities to hold their police to higher standards.

I agree with ending it though.

McGentrix wrote:

No knock warrants must become a thing of the past. There is no need for them and they serve no purpose.

Agreed.

McGentrix wrote:

Rid the police of military gear and return to community policing. Go back to the days of ADAM-12 where police knew the communities they served and were respected in return.

I'm not sure what community policing means, if it is different from what the police already do.

I'm not sure what distinguishes military and non-military gear, but I oppose not properly equipping the police.

If the government were to stop properly equipping the police, police officers have the same rights under the Second Amendment and the Heller ruling that all other ordinary citizens have, and I would argue that the Second Amendment extends to allowing them to use their own equipment while on duty if the government does not provide them with proper equipment.

McGentrix wrote:

Form special units for handling gangs and other things of such need. They must be separate from Police and held to super high standards.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to SWAT teams? If so, are you proposing that SWAT teams be made separate to the police?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Mandatory body cameras that are on at start of shift and completely out of the control of the officer.
If the officer blocks camera or mutes it, they are terminated.

I disagree.

As long as police officers are lynched for justifiably defending themselves, they need to be allowed to practice "Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up".

If they are "justifiably defending themselves" then there should be no issue with it being recorded. Otherwise, they are nothing more than another criminal.

oralloy wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Rid the police of military gear and return to community policing. Go back to the days of ADAM-12 where police knew the communities they served and were respected in return.

I'm not sure what community policing means, if it is different from what the police already do.

I'm not sure what distinguishes military and non-military gear, but I oppose not properly equipping the police.

If the government were to stop properly equipping the police, police officers have the same rights under the Second Amendment and the Heller ruling that all other ordinary citizens have, and I would argue that the Second Amendment extends to allowing them to use their own equipment while on duty if the government does not provide them with proper equipment.

The Federal Government should not be arming police. Local governments should be based on needs.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/HwjAXR0zluVhK082TZxrOerdGII=/720x405/media/img/mt/2014/08/riotprep/original.jpg

https://media.list.ly/production/90068/headline.jpeg?ver=3514982288

Surely you see the difference here. There is no need for a Police Officer to ever look like the picture on the left. Ever.

oralloy wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Form special units for handling gangs and other things of such need. They must be separate from Police and held to super high standards.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to SWAT teams? If so, are you proposing that SWAT teams be made separate to the police?

SWAT teams have changed over the last 50 years and todays SWAT teams should be separated from the city police force. They should be trained differently and held to a different standard than a police officer.

1 Reply

I am curious.

Does anyone other than Oralloy disagree with McGentrix on the steps he suggests?

We (as a society) should be discussing constructive steps we can do rather than just shouting across entrenched partisan lines.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm curious too.

If anyone else does disagree with me, I much prefer that said disagreement be accompanied with reasoned discussion.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

If they are "justifiably defending themselves" then there should be no issue with it being recorded. Otherwise, they are nothing more than another criminal.

There is a huge issue with it being recorded. Police officers are being lynched for justifiably defending themselves.

Not recording incidents would allow police officers to avoid being lynched.

McGentrix wrote:

The Federal Government should not be arming police. Local governments should be based on needs.

I don't see the problem with the federal government helping out local government.

McGentrix wrote:

Surely you see the difference here. There is no need for a Police Officer to ever look like the picture on the left. Ever.

The picture on the left looks like a SWAT team.

McGentrix wrote:

SWAT teams have changed over the last 50 years and todays SWAT teams should be separated from the city police force. They should be trained differently and held to a different standard than a police officer.

They are already trained much differently. This disparity of training is actually a bad thing.

SWAT training would be of great use with ordinary police officers. In particular, the ability to rapidly determine whether or not to shoot would cut down on unjustified shootings.

That skill only comes with extensive shooting exercises where "civilian" targets pop up as well as "bad guy" targets, and the officer has to avoid firing whenever a "civilian" target pops up.

Right now cities only pay for such training for SWAT teams. A few ordinary police officers train themselves in their spare time, especially if they enjoy shooting. Most police officers never receive such training.

I don't see what advantage would come from making SWAT teams separate from "regular" police departments.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I don't think reasoned discussion is possible with you Oralloy. And, yes, I have tried.

You do the crazy mind-reading thing... where you tell me what I believe and then don't listen to me when I tell you that you are wrong.

If you are unable to listen to someone else tell you what they themselves think... you are basically arguing with yourself.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't think reasoned discussion is possible with you Oralloy.

It is wrong to blame me for your inability to engage in reasoned discussion.

maxdancona wrote:

And, yes, I have tried.

No you haven't. You always turn tail and run as soon as I post facts.

Granted, your running away is preferable to the name-calling and temper tantrums that most progressives engage in when they are confronted with facts.

But one thing that it isn't, is an attempt at reasoned discussion.

maxdancona wrote:

You do the crazy mind-reading thing... where you tell me what I believe and then don't listen to me when I tell you that you are wrong.
If you are unable to listen to someone else tell you what they themselves think... you are basically arguing with yourself.

When you openly support a group, it is reasonable to associate you with the goals of that group.

You don't need to read my mind to know that my support of the NRA means that I share their goals.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Oralloy, I am expressing my opinion in this post. I am not asserting any facts, so there is nothing here to argue. I am just telling you how I feel.

I have no obligation to interact with you in any way. If I choose to respond to a post, it is because either I have point to make I consider valid, or because you say something interesting (in this case, it is the former).

In my opinion, you are not worth engaging in any serious way. The reason for this is that in my opinion you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

In my opinion, it is annoying when you make outrageous claims, and then you just keep repeating "It's fact" "It's fact" "It's fact" "You can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "it's fact" "everything I say is fact". You are not making any real argument, and you are as boring as hell.

In my opinion, it is especially annoying when you tell me what I am thinking, and then disagree with me about my own thoughts when I tell you you a wrong. Your claim to be able to read minds is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to take you seriously.

In my opinion, it will be worthwhile to engage with you seriously (rather than this nonsense) when

1. You stop mindreading and start listening when people tell you what they actually believe.

2. You can (in my opinion) accept facts even when (in my opinion) they conflict with your ideological narrative.

I will engage with you serious when, in my opinion, I feel like there is a point. Until then, I consider your far right-wing, ideological bluster to be (in my opinion) completely with merit.

When I don't respond to something, it is because I don't see any reason to.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, you are not worth engaging in any serious way.

Progressives often feel this way about people who tell the truth.

maxdancona wrote:

The reason for this is that in my opinion you are unable to distinguish between fact and opinion.

How do you rationalize the fact that you cannot provide any examples of me ever failing to distinguish between fact and opinion?

Let me guess. You run away without confronting it?

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, it is annoying when you make outrageous claims, and then you just keep repeating "It's fact" "It's fact" "It's fact" "You can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "you can't disprove it" "it's fact" "everything I say is fact". You are not making any real argument, and you are as boring as hell.

Why does it annoy you when I point out relevant facts?

You are wrong when you say that pointing out relevant facts does not make for a real argument. Relevant facts are quite important in real arguments.

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, it is especially annoying when you tell me what I am thinking, and then disagree with me about my own thoughts when I tell you you a wrong. Your claim to be able to read minds is so ridiculous that it makes it impossible to take you seriously.

I have never claimed to be able to read minds, and have even stated more than once that I do not have this ability.

However, when you openly express solidarity with a hate group, it is reasonable to credit you with having the same views as that hate group.

maxdancona wrote:

In my opinion, it will be worthwhile to engage with you seriously (rather than this nonsense) when
1. You stop mindreading and start listening when people tell you what they actually believe.

Again, when you openly express solidarity with a hate group, it is reasonable to credit you with having the same views as that hate group.

I don't express solidarity with any hate groups like you do, but I do openly express solidarity with the NRA. It is reasonable for people to infer from this that I have the same goals that the NRA does.

maxdancona wrote:

2. You can (in my opinion) accept facts even when (in my opinion) they conflict with your ideological narrative.

I have always accepted facts. You are the only person here who refuses to accept facts.

If you were capable of posting a fact that conflicts with my ideological narrative, I would not run away in terror like you do. Neither would I engage in childish temper tantrums the way most other progressives do.

If you were capable of posting a fact that conflicts with my ideological narrative, I would accept that fact and adjust my narrative accordingly.

But let's get serious here. You and I both know that you are not capable of doing such a thing.

maxdancona wrote:

I will engage with you serious when, in my opinion, I feel like there is a point. Until then, I consider your far right-wing, ideological bluster to be (in my opinion) completely with merit.

It is a credit to the far right that you associate them with facts and reality.

You are wrong to say that facts and reality have no merit.

We both know that you will never participate in a serious discussion.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

There is a huge issue with it being recorded. Police officers are being lynched for justifiably defending themselves.

Not recording incidents would allow police officers to avoid being lynched.

Nonsense. Not just normal nonsense, but utter nonsense, bordering on bullshit.
It is the recording of cops committing crimes that have them being "lynched" (held to the same criminal law that others are). Body SHOULD be mandatory by 2025 for every officer and if they refuse, they can look for another job.

oralloy wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
The Federal Government should not be arming police. Local governments should be based on needs.

I don't see the problem with the federal government helping out local government.

Where is that in the US Constitution?

oralloy wrote:

They are already trained much differently. This disparity of training is actually a bad thing.

SWAT training would be of great use with ordinary police officers. In particular, the ability to rapidly determine whether or not to shoot would cut down on unjustified shootings.

That skill only comes with extensive shooting exercises where "civilian" targets pop up as well as "bad guy" targets, and the officer has to avoid firing whenever a "civilian" target pops up.

Right now cities only pay for such training for SWAT teams. A few ordinary police officers train themselves in their spare time, especially if they enjoy shooting. Most police officers never receive such training.

I don't see what advantage would come from making SWAT teams separate from "regular" police departments.

Because regular beat cops should not be shooting up the people they are sworn to protect. They have enough to do being cops that they do not need to be SWAT too.

The advantage is that SWAT officers are trained to do what they do. Giving a cop an automatic rifle and a vest does not give them the training that a SWAT officer needs.

1 Reply

Way too many citizens being killed by police!

Quick Links

My Account

able2know