International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   The behaviour of US police officers (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323251)

Nessie 23rd September 2017 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12005872)
First, you carefully neglect to mention that you are quoting photograph captions. Photographs that don't depict either scenery or action are singularly boring, and showing a series of photographs that don't depict scenery or action, even with captions, would be pointless. Apparently you agree because:

There is a fourth photo (actually the third in the series) that shows the attendees in a classroom setting. You not only skipped over this photo, you seem to want to hide it's existence.

If I did want to hide it existence, I would not have included the link. I could have said that out of four examples of what students would learn, three are SWAT tactics and one is a class room discussion.

Quote:

You also fail to quote or mention this paragraph: "The students attend a 3 hour*course once a week for a period* over at least 10 weeks of instruction. During each course, the students experience a*hands-on learning approach to gain insight concerning the practices of modern*law enforcement agencies."

Is it your contention that attendees are presented with approximately 30 hours of nothing but SWAT, assault and similar presentations? In fact, such presentations occupy less than 10% of such courses.

Once again your post is entirely cherry picking and misrepresentation. Have you no shame?
I have made no such contention and it is fact that the emphasis used to attract students is SWAT tactics.

Quote:

No, I suspect you would not "love" to attend an academy, since it would not agree with your agenda.

This signature is intended to irritate people.
My agenda is to draw attention to the behaviour of the US police after reading and contributing to years worth of debates about shootings. You mentioned the use of civilian academies and I had a look. The first one I found was of a small police force in a peaceful part of the USA, that looks like it is preparing for war and is trying to condition the public to allow that.

The Big Dog 23rd September 2017 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12005895)
Standard modus operandi. Pick on something tangential to the thrust of the post, and work away at it endlessly, deliberately avoiding dealing with the principles or the main points raised. That's both an observation, and a prediction.

You mean challenging the fundamental basis for the entire post?

Don't do that then?

zooterkin 23rd September 2017 11:43 AM

Curious no-one seems to have responded to the implicit question in my post.

What are the principles that American policing is founded on? How can we judge if they are living up to expectations if we don't know what those expectations are.

The Big Dog 23rd September 2017 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005901)
If I did want to hide it existence, I would not have included the link. I could have said that out of four examples of what students would learn, three are SWAT tactics and one is a class room discussion.



I have made no such contention and it is fact that the emphasis used to attract students is SWAT tactics.



My agenda is to draw attention to the behaviour of the US police after reading and contributing to years worth of debates about shootings. You mentioned the use of civilian academies and I had a look. The first one I found was of a small police force in a peaceful part of the USA, that looks like it is preparing for war and is trying to condition the public to allow that.

That last paragraph would not be out of place on the prison planet board, just needs a reference to the NWO, put I think that can be safely implied.

Nessie 23rd September 2017 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12005893)
No, theres an issue. But your misrepresentation and the ensuing argument does little or nothing to contribute to a solution.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

I do not see how I am misrepresenting it. I have shown how the US police shoot way more than any other police, I have linked to a study of of reasons why that is, I have linked to a report on the increased militarisation of the police and then linked to an example of how a small police force in a peaceful area is trying to normalise it s militarisation by educating the public.

I have in another thread suggested a solution, which is all the small forces should be trained by the state to ensure the same high standard (how it is done in the UK) and the emphasis is on de-escalation, not SWAT.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hout-guns.html

"US police gather in Scotland to learn how to protect and serve without guns
After a wave of deadly shootings by police on unarmed suspects, US police chiefs have turned to Scotland as a model for less aggressive policing

....Police chiefs from New York, Boston, Houston and other US cities have gathered at Scotland's police training academy at Tulliallan, 25 miles Northeast of Glasgow.

Bernard Higgins, Assistant Chief Constable of Police Scotland, instructed the officers on the Scottish approach to policing.

“The basic fundamental principle, even in the areas where there’s high levels of crime, high levels of social deprivation, is it’s community-based policing by unarmed officers,” he explained, according to the New York Times. “We police from an absolute position of embracing democracy.”

That means, according to Mr Higgins, being willing to retreat from a confrontation with a suspect in order to help diffuse the situation.

The police officials assembled understood the logic of such a strategy, but thought it would be difficult to execute in the muscular world of American policing."

Nessie 23rd September 2017 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 12005907)
Curious no-one seems to have responded to the implicit question in my post.

What are the principles that American policing is founded on? How can we judge if they are living up to expectations if we don't know what those expectations are.

Maybe there are none. The local Sheriff got to make it up as he went along?

Horatius 23rd September 2017 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12005869)
really? On what do you base that claim?


Seriously? Did you read the post that was literally just 2 before that one?


Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12005845)
From the other thread:



This critical thinking forum is a joke now.


This forum is a "joke" for simply discussing this topic, which fits in perfectly with what Dave Rogers was discussing.

Nessie 23rd September 2017 12:14 PM

Taking sources that are more about the behaviour of the police from other threads, here is a very good study about the police in Canada

http://theindependent.ca/2015/04/14/...ngs-in-canada/

Canada has 0.7 fatal shootings by the police per 100,000 (the USA 2.9, the UK 0.04) The problem for Canada is Alberta which skews the figures. The article goes on to note that;

"But that cannot be the whole story, because Canadian police kill more people in one year than UK police kill in 10, despite our countries having homicide rates in the same ballpark. This seems to be the result of different approaches to policing; in particular, most police officers in the UK do not carry guns. The typical British ‘bobby’ is expected to carry out her duties armed only with speed cuffs, a baton, and tear gas or pepper spray. Firearms are restricted to special units whose members have lots of experience and special training. If police in Canada were to adopt this approach, a lot of unnecessary tragedies could be averted.
But you may ask: If UK police do not carry guns, doesn’t that place them greater risk? Apparently not. Not a single British police officer has been murdered on the job since 2012."

The UK cop is expected to use de-escalation tactics and those with guns are highly trained.

Beady 23rd September 2017 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005901)
If I did want to hide it existence, I would not have included the link. I could have said that out of four examples of what students would learn, three are SWAT tactics and one is a class room discussion.

Yes. You could have.

Quote:

I have made no such contention and it is fact that the emphasis used to attract students is SWAT tactics.
I disagree with your interpretation. As I said, action is more photogenic than inaction; that is all. Colleges and universities use sports to generate publicity, solicit funds and attract students; are sports the only, or even major, facet of colleges and universities?

Quote:

My agenda is to draw attention to the behaviour of the US police after reading and contributing to years worth of debates about shootings. You mentioned the use of civilian academies and I had a look. The first one I found...
The first, and apparently the only one, judging by the time between your posts. Not a good testament to the depth of your research.

Which reminds me, in all these "years-worth of debates," why was this apparently the first mention you have encountered of citizen police academies? They have been a staple of police outreach for decades. Is this another example of the quality of your research?

Quote:

...was of a small police force in a peaceful part of the USA, that looks like it is preparing for war and is trying to condition the public to allow that.
Another matter of perception and interpretation fueled by bias.

Say, I just remembered a similar debate not terribly long ago, where my correspondent was of the opinion that the police should not be allowed to perform first aid, because it's a way for them to desensitize the citizenry to the police's strengthening grip on the nation's throat, or some such. Was that you?


This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zooterkin (Post 12005907)
Curious no-one seems to have responded to the implicit question in my post.

What are the principles that American policing is founded on? How can we judge if they are living up to expectations if we don't know what those expectations are.

I suspect it varies from department to department; American police are not centralized as they are in the UK. Each jurisdiction is free to develop it's own "mission statement," as it were.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Nessie 23rd September 2017 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12005995)
Yes. You could have.

I disagree with your interpretation. As I said, action is more photogenic than inaction; that is all. Colleges and universities use sports to generate publicity, solicit funds and attract students; are sports the only, or even major, facet of colleges and universities?

The first, and apparently the only one, judging by the time between your posts. Not a good testament to the depth of your research.

It still shows the emphasis is on SWAT.

Quote:

Which reminds me, in all these "years-worth of debates," why was this apparently the first mention you have encountered of citizen police academies? They have been a staple of police outreach for decades. Is this another example of the quality of your research?

Another matter of perception and interpretation fueled by bias.
Years of debates on shootings, the circumstances and gun control in general. This is the first time I have looked specifically at the police and how they behave. I may have seen references to such academies, but there are none in the UK and so I was not fully aware of what they entailed.

Quote:

Say, I just remembered a similar debate not terribly long ago, where my correspondent was of the opinion that the police should not be allowed to perform first aid, because it's a way for them to desensitize the citizenry to the police's strengthening grip on the nation's throat, or some such. Was that you?


This signature is intended to irritate people.
No.

Beady 23rd September 2017 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005914)
I do not see how I am misrepresenting it. I have shown how the US police shoot way more than any other police, I have linked to a study of of reasons why that is, I have linked to a report on the increased militarisation of the police and then linked to an example of how a small police force in a peaceful area is trying to normalise it s militarisation by educating the public.

Then maybe you should reread my responses. In each of these instances you have cherry-picked, misinterpreted, presented unwarranted conclusions and assigned motive.

Quote:

I have in another thread suggested a solution, which is all the small forces should be trained by the state to ensure the same high standard (how it is done in the UK) and the emphasis is on de-escalation, not SWAT.
Haven't seen that thread, but I'm sure all us Yankee savages are grateful for your condescension and expertise.

Quote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hout-guns.html

"US police gather in Scotland to learn how to protect and serve without guns
After a wave of deadly shootings by police on unarmed suspects, US police chiefs have turned to Scotland as a model for less aggressive policing

....Police chiefs from New York, Boston, Houston and other US cities have gathered at Scotland's police training academy at Tulliallan, 25 miles Northeast of Glasgow.

Bernard Higgins, Assistant Chief Constable of Police Scotland, instructed the officers on the Scottish approach to policing.

“The basic fundamental principle, even in the areas where there’s high levels of crime, high levels of social deprivation, is it’s community-based policing by unarmed officers,” he explained, according to the New York Times. “We police from an absolute position of embracing democracy.”

That means, according to Mr Higgins, being willing to retreat from a confrontation with a suspect in order to help diffuse the situation.

The police officials assembled understood the logic of such a strategy, but thought it would be difficult to execute in the muscular world of American policing."
You seem to have ignored the final paragraph, again. In any event, I note that Assistant Chief Constable Higgins was giving his lecture in a classroom in Scotland, and not on patrol in Bedford-Stuyvesant, the Barrio or Chitown's south side. As any graduate of Sesame Street can tell you, There is not Here, and the Swiss Guard would be completely out of place on the West Bank.

But, again, thank you so much for your willingness to show us how to solve our problems.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005934)
Taking sources that are more about the behaviour of the police from other threads, here is a very good study about the police in Canada

http://theindependent.ca/2015/04/14/...ngs-in-canada/

Canada has 0.7 fatal shootings by the police per 100,000 (the USA 2.9, the UK 0.04) The problem for Canada is Alberta which skews the figures. The article goes on to note that;

"But that cannot be the whole story, because Canadian police kill more people in one year than UK police kill in 10, despite our countries having homicide rates in the same ballpark. This seems to be the result of different approaches to policing; in particular, most police officers in the UK do not carry guns. The typical British ‘bobby’ is expected to carry out her duties armed only with speed cuffs, a baton, and tear gas or pepper spray. Firearms are restricted to special units whose members have lots of experience and special training. If police in Canada were to adopt this approach, a lot of unnecessary tragedies could be averted.
But you may ask: If UK police do not carry guns, doesn’t that place them greater risk? Apparently not. Not a single British police officer has been murdered on the job since 2012."

The UK cop is expected to use de-escalation tactics and those with guns are highly trained.

What is the percentage of firearm ownership in the UK?

This signature is intended to irritate people.

fagin 23rd September 2017 03:21 PM

Really, really low, fortunately, unless you count shotguns, and we are quite OK with that.

DreamingNaiad 23rd September 2017 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader (Post 12005782)
This is a pretty terrible post as far as I, a New Yorker, am concerned. Police and firefighters who lived in my county rushed into the World Trade Center and died there.

Police are people who confront unknown situations every day, some of which may be violent. They have no idea when or how a situation might turn deadly.

It's true that police generally overestimate danger. And it's true that some may judge that danger based on the race, sex or religion of the person they stop. I am all in favor of increased training and standardized procedures for law enforcement. But there's a difference between wanting the police to get better and saying they are indefensible.

Unjustified shootings ARE indefensible though. As you say, the solution is that they be trained. But if people defend every bad or iffy shoot there will be no incentive to train better.

Most officers would probably prefer to never shoot anyone and it is horrible for them that their superiors aren't giving them all the tools needed to resolve things peacefully (de-escalation techniques).

It always troubles me that any criticism of the police results in people being labelled cop-haters. I have complete respect for anyone who chooses to step up and protect the public. Which is why it can be so jarring to hear about tragedies like the Magdiel Sanchez case or Philando Castile. And then having people insisting that the cops involved can't be criticised or expected to behave rationally or that the victim should be held to higher standards than the officer makes me feel like the US is pranking the rest of the world.

How can cops run into danger in the WTC one minute and dissolve into pants-******** terror at a traffic stop where the victim was being compliant the next?

We all owe it to the good officers to denounce the bad ones.

P.S. I know most of that seemed all over the place but I'm trying to wrap my head around it all :boggled:

Mumbles 23rd September 2017 03:53 PM

Heh. Funny you mention Bed-Stuy. I know a couple of people that lived there, and it's much the same as in Baltimore - police see you walking around or just standing , start yelling, shove you either into a wall or force you to the ground, dig in your pockets without permission, and when they find nothing just leave.

Back when cops had their big "we only respond to calls" fit, my friends there described it as the safest they'd ever felt.

Oh, and in DC, have fun with jump-outs.

DreamingNaiad 23rd September 2017 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006016)
Then maybe you should reread my responses. In each of these instances you have cherry-picked, misinterpreted, presented unwarranted conclusions and assigned motive.

Haven't seen that thread, but I'm sure all us Yankee savages are grateful for your condescension and expertise.

You seem to have ignored the final paragraph, again. In any event, I note that Assistant Chief Constable Higgins was giving his lecture in a classroom in Scotland, and not on patrol in Bedford-Stuyvesant, the Barrio or Chitown's south side. As any graduate of Sesame Street can tell you, There is not Here, and the Swiss Guard would be completely out of place on the West Bank.

But, again, thank you so much for your willingness to show us how to solve our problems.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Part of the problem might be that you view your streets as some kind of war zone.

All police across the planet have to deal with criminals and violence. The US is not exeptional in that regard. The streets of Glasgow can get pretty violent. There is the added difficulty of so many people being armed in the US but to my knowledge no one has ever told the police not to shoot someone wielding a gun.

Beady 23rd September 2017 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fagin (Post 12006054)
Really, really low, fortunately, unless you count shotguns, and we are quite OK with that.

Here, the 2nd Amendment isn't going away, for good or evil, and we're quite OK with that. We are two different societies. What works there is unsuited for here, and vice versa.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad (Post 12006074)
We all owe it to the good officers to denounce the bad ones.

It's not simply a case of Good v Bad. A good cop can make a horrible mistake, and I think that's where the vast majority of these incidents lands. That doesn't excuse anything, and the cop should face punishment, but there's no logical reason to assume that anyone is immune to making such a mistake. It's a foreseeable consequence of carrying a firearm.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbles (Post 12006075)
Heh. Funny you mention Bed-Stuy. I know a couple of people that lived there, and it's much the same as in Baltimore - police see you walking around or just standing , start yelling, shove you either into a wall or force you to the ground, dig in your pockets without permission, and when they find nothing just leave.

Back when cops had their big "we only respond to calls" fit, my friends there described it as the safest they'd ever felt.

Oh, and in DC, have fun with jump-outs.

You do realize that it's possible to interpret your post as being more of a comment on the kind of friends you keep, than on the police?

Not doing that here, I'm just trying to illustrate to a certain someone how facts can be interpreted according to bias.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad (Post 12006087)
Part of the problem might be that you view your streets as some kind of war zone.

All police across the planet have to deal with criminals and violence. The US is not exeptional in that regard. The streets of Glasgow can get pretty violent. There is the added difficulty of so many people being armed in the US but to my knowledge no one has ever told the police not to shoot someone wielding a gun.

Chiraq.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

DreamingNaiad 23rd September 2017 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006115)
It's not simply a case of Good v Bad. A good cop can make a horrible mistake, and I think that's where the vast majority of these incidents lands. That doesn't excuse anything, and the cop should face punishment, but there's no logical reason to assume that anyone is immune to making such a mistake. It's a foreseeable consequence of carrying a firearm.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Perhaps a better term would be "unfit" or "unsuited". Those who easily panic should be weeded out early.

And those who are more level-headed should be given all the tools needed to ensure everyone goes home safe.

I remember something on the BBC (it might have been the program mentioned earlier) where the Scottish officer tried to explain that once you enter a situation screaming at people with your gun drawn you have nowhere else to go if things escalate. Shooting is the only next step if something goes wrong.

But if you come in talking and keeping calm you can escslate if necessary (and hopefully it wont come to that).

DreamingNaiad 23rd September 2017 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006121)
Chiraq.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

I'm pretty sure everyone, including the police, is contributing to the violence there. Didn't they allegedly have some kind of black site or something? :eye-poppi

Blue Mountain 23rd September 2017 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005934)
Taking sources that are more about the behaviour of the police from other threads, here is a very good study about the police in Canada

http://theindependent.ca/2015/04/14/...ngs-in-canada/

Canada has 0.7 fatal shootings by the police per 100,000 (the USA 2.9, the UK 0.04) (remainder snipped)

Just a minor correction. The rate for police killing civilians is per million, not per 100,000. The next set of statistics in the article—homicides—is per 100,000.

Mumbles 23rd September 2017 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006119)
You do realize that it's possible to interpret your post as being more of a comment on the kind of friends you keep, than on the police?

The sort that simply want to work, eat, and live without being attacked by government agents that can put them in a cell, or a coffin, if they so much as move the wrong way.

Ever seen a stop-and-frisk? Ever even heard of it before?

Beady 23rd September 2017 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad (Post 12006124)
I remember something on the BBC (it might have been the program mentioned earlier) where the Scottish officer tried to explain that once you enter a situation screaming at people with your gun drawn you have nowhere else to go if things escalate. Shooting is the only next step if something goes wrong.

But if you come in talking and keeping calm you can escslate if necessary (and hopefully it wont come to that).

American cops rarely enter a situation "screaming, with guns drawn." One hand resting on the butt of their holstered weapon, maybe, but that's usually the extent.

There's any number of reasons the situation can go south after that, and it's inaccurate, senseless and dishonest to generalize. On the cop's side it could be anything from just having a bad day to being an officious ass with an ego problem (one of my co-workers -- aka cow-orker -- in Immigration didn't count it a good day until he had denied at least one visa application). On the suspect's(?) side it could be anything from an ill-advised or stupid move to suicide by cop.

The possible scenarios are endless. The 500-lb gorilla in the room, of course, is that every once in a while, regardless of all other considerations the cop, whether officious bastard or devoted family man (and the two are not mutually exclusive) will have to unexpectedly and in a fraction of a second decide whether to draw and fire. If he stops to think about it he could be dead.

I honestly don't know how you train for that. Oh sure, you practice the mechanics of the scenario and go over and over how to recognize the situation for what it is, but the classroom doesn't dump adrenalin into your system, the simulator is not the street, and naked fear isn't present. I just don't know how to train for it and I'm reasonably sure that I couldn't do it.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Beady 23rd September 2017 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mumbles (Post 12006161)
The sort that simply want to work, eat, and live without being attacked by government agents that can put them in a cell, or a coffin, if they so much as move the wrong way.

Ever seen a stop-and-frisk? Ever even heard of it before?

Yup, and don't expect me to defend it.

Let me be clear: I am pro-cop, but not pro-cop right or wrong. However, as I've already said repeatedly, you cannot effectively make corrections by misrepresenting the situation.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

MikeG 23rd September 2017 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad (Post 12006074)
Unjustified shootings ARE indefensible though. As you say, the solution is that they be trained...............

That's only part of the answer. The other major part is that they are accountable. They should have to go through a rigorous process justifying every shot they fire. They should be investigated by a powerful independent authority with the power to fine, suspend or dismiss them every time they shoot someone, and they should face criminal charges, including murder, every time they shoot someone they shouldn't have shot. There should also be a national set of guidelines or even laws which proscribes their rights to discharge their weapons, against which they should be judged every single time they pull the trigger.

MikeG 24th September 2017 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006016)
.......Haven't seen that thread, but I'm sure all us Yankee savages are grateful for your condescension and expertise........

But, again, thank you so much for your willingness to show us how to solve our problems........

Look at that tone. Boy, someone struck a nerve with you, didn't they.

Now that for the first time you have actually acknowledged that you have a problem, instead of dripping sarcasm at everyone who suggests frameworks for beginning to address the problem, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the discussion yourself? How would you begin to fix the problem of US police killing so many US citizens every year?

quadraginta 24th September 2017 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeG (Post 12006274)
Look at that tone. Boy, someone struck a nerve with you, didn't they.

Now that for the first time you have actually acknowledged that you have a problem, instead of dripping sarcasm at everyone who suggests frameworks for beginning to address the problem, why don't you make some sort of positive contribution to the discussion yourself? How would you begin to fix the problem of US police killing so many US citizens every year?


The real problem with having this conversation with the diehard cop groupies who dig desperately for any justification they can dream up to excuse the behavior of psychotic, out-of-control cops who kill is that they don't really acknowledge the existence of a problem. It is all just part of 'the price we have to pay to be safe in a free society'.

Or something.

Nessie 24th September 2017 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006016)
Then maybe you should reread my responses. In each of these instances you have cherry-picked, misinterpreted, presented unwarranted conclusions and assigned motive.

Haven't seen that thread, but I'm sure all us Yankee savages are grateful for your condescension and expertise.

You seem to have ignored the final paragraph, again. In any event, I note that Assistant Chief Constable Higgins was giving his lecture in a classroom in Scotland, and not on patrol in Bedford-Stuyvesant, the Barrio or Chitown's south side. As any graduate of Sesame Street can tell you, There is not Here, and the Swiss Guard would be completely out of place on the West Bank.

But, again, thank you so much for your willingness to show us how to solve our problems.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

Anything positive to contribute, or do you think this is a non issue? Or is it just annoying you a Scot is pointing out the elephant in the room?

jimbob 24th September 2017 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12005995)
Yes. You could have.

I disagree with your interpretation. As I said, action is more photogenic than inaction; that is all. Colleges and universities use sports to generate publicity, solicit funds and attract students; are sports the only, or even major, facet of colleges and universities?

The first, and apparently the only one, judging by the time between your posts. Not a good testament to the depth of your research.

Which reminds me, in all these "years-worth of debates," why was this apparently the first mention you have encountered of citizen police academies? They have been a staple of police outreach for decades. Is this another example of the quality of your research?

Another matter of perception and interpretation fueled by bias.

Say, I just remembered a similar debate not terribly long ago, where my correspondent was of the opinion that the police should not be allowed to perform first aid, because it's a way for them to desensitize the citizenry to the police's strengthening grip on the nation's throat, or some such. Was that you?


This signature is intended to irritate people.

That was Bob the Coward. - Pretty accurate summary, only it was boots against necks. On the plus side, he did manage to get right wing and left wing posters to agree on an aspect of politics. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11982621)
Exactly. Then they just worm their way closer to our community. We invite into our neighborhood the stasi who want their boots against our necks.



Nessie posted what Scottish Police must do in a RTA:

Which is pretty much in line with standard First Aid protocols

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 11982582)
In Scotland, police attending the scene of a RTA must, in order

1 - protect the scene of the accident from any further accidents. You do not want another car crashing.
2 - assess what resources are needed and report to the control room
3 - only once 1 and 2 are completed (which can take some time) will they then render any first aid and the instruction is to go to anyone not making any noise. If someone is screaming, they are still alive and breathing.



Change is possible in US police forces:

https://qz.com/565011/how-one-of-the...ooting-people/

Elsewhere on this forum I hvae seen (but can't find) a link showing that smaller police departments, with poorer training, are disproportionately represented in police shootings, even though many are in low-crime areas.

jimbob 24th September 2017 03:03 AM

Interesting paper:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0141854

Quote:

4. Shot by Police: Race/Ethnicity Across Armed Status

It is worth noting, that on average across counties in the United States, an individual is as likely to be {black, unarmed, and shot by police} as {white, armed, and shot by police}, with a median relative risk estimate of 1.04 (PCI95: 0.62, 1.61). The corresponding ratio for hispanics is 0.52 (PCI95: 0.32, 0.75).

3point14 24th September 2017 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beady (Post 12006170)
I am pro-cop


What does this mean?

fagin 24th September 2017 04:14 AM

He's not Robocop?

Dave Rogers 24th September 2017 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Dog (Post 12005869)
really? On what do you base that claim?


On posts like these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12005800)
tempest...teapot

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgidm86 (Post 12005845)
From the other thread:



This critical thinking forum is a joke now.

Both of these posters clearly feel that this topic is too insignificant to discuss. Having established that, how many unjustified police killings would be sufficient to justify skeptics discussing the issue?

Dave

applecorped 24th September 2017 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 12006367)
On posts like these:





Both of these posters clearly feel that this topic is too insignificant to discuss. Having established that, how many unjustified police killings would be sufficient to justify skeptics discussing the issue?

Dave

Prognostication fail, you established nothing

zooterkin 24th September 2017 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 12006374)
Prognostication fail, you established nothing

What did you mean, then?

Darth Rotor 24th September 2017 06:24 AM

Simply another thread filled with Nessie's irrational paranoia about firearms, with a fig leaf being a whinge about cops. LL's response suffices for mine.

@Zooterkin: Suggest you do some research. There is more than one kind of law enforcement agency in the US. Each has its own philosophy.

The FBI and the Justice Department spent about 50 years, after the civil rights era/police brutality uproars, spending federal funds and a lot of time and effort to aid states and cities in the professionalization of their police forces. (Source for this? The training captain of a metropolitan PD who I've known for some years, 38 years on the force). My brother in law, career cop, has told me that the best training he has gotten over the years, after his initial training at the police academy, was the FBI training.

The politics of policing has a long and interesting history. (Check out the mid 1800's New York cops ... hardly the model of the modern professional most cops aspire to). Whatever assumptions you are making, check them. All of the norms and issues of a given society inform to what their police do. (My recall of 1980's Germany is that German cops don't do Miranda warnings, and the occasional "slap 'em around" response was common. Italian police likewise.)

Lastly, a variety of criminal sorts in the US are armed, legally or otherwise, and dangerous. Depending on what locale you are operating in as a cop, you'll be more or less paranoid about approaching a given scene. Read up on the Branch Davidians in Waco if you do not understand that last sentence.

Lastly: cops get shot and shot at. If it weren't for many of them wearing body armor, many more would die. This is not a one way street.

Suggest you do some more research on five major PD's in the US in re "guiding principles" to compare to your theory crafting about cops.

NYPD
LAPD
Chicago PD
Houston PD
Miami PD

Your assumption that there is "one guiding principle" strikes me as your very first error. We don't have a national police force, first of all. You are not making an apples to apples comparison.

Beelzebuddy 24th September 2017 06:55 AM

The problem with American policing has nothing to do with guns, or training, or approach. The problem is how the attitude of "good cops" exacerbate bad policing.

People are people. I'm sure police forces in the UK get roughly the same proportion of dickheads as US police. People who mostly just signed up to beat the **** out of people and get away with it. In the UK, when someone like that finally steps over the line and kills someone, what happens? Probably some kind of inquiry, demerits all up and down the line, jail time and such, right?

In the US, here's what happens all too often: not a damned thing. From the officer's buddies just so happening to look the other way, to evidence being mishandled, to dash cams and body cams being turned off at that exact moment, to police chiefs who put them on paid suspension pending an "investigation" that lasts as long as it takes for media interest to die down, to friendly judges and prosecutors stacking friendly juries, nothing ever happens to hold these bad cops accountable. Actual jail time is an incredible rarity. And even if such an individual accrues enough of a history to get fired from one precinct, the next town over would be glad to have him because he has years of experience being a cop and somehow the violence never gets mentioned.

All of that is not the fault of the bad cops, but the "good cops" who aid and abet them. That is the problem. Almost all cops like to think of themselves as good cops, but would they cover for a buddy who "got a little out of hand?" Then **** them, they're just as crooked and they need to deal with that.

There's more to talk about, like the culture of fear that US police foster in their ranks, but fix the outright corruption first and then we'll see about institutional issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 12005775)
It is also getting worse, as cops kill more and more people;

I don't think so. I don't have the numbers, no one does, but my hunch is it's gotten a lot better in recent years. Cops are finally being held accountable for their actions, albeit in a public way via youtube, so we're just hearing about it more. "Cop shoots a black kid" wouldn't even have made the local news a few decades ago.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.