The question is simply about policing in the United States of America. In sight of recent events, and in your own opinion, have we failed as members of the Law Enforcement community or for some of you that may not have LE experience as non-bias third party? (I say non-bias, but I acknowledge the fact this site is, for the most part, pro-LEO)

Some questions you should ask yourself are: 

• Does the media create a public expectation of what they think, police should or should not be doing or doing different? (Have they created something that just isn't there)
• What is the actual percentage of REAL as opposed to NOT REAL cases of police brutality? (We are dealing dishonest human beings at times)
• Do you think the Police is becoming Too Militarized? (I say we have to keep up with what the bad guy throws at us)
• Is there not enough education on what policing and law enforcement is?.....and should the public really know everything? (Tactics, SOP's etc..)

I encourage and invite anyone who wishes to give their opinion on this matter to do so. 

The only thing I ask is that you give semi-educated responses and not "F*** the Police" comments (It will only display your ignorance) AND that you show everyone who posts on this topic the same amount of respect for their views, as you would want to be shown, for yours

(Also, I would enjoy to see members from different countries)

Thank you!

 

Honestly, I've never experienced police brutality, and I think with all the recording people do these days, we really only see the bad. I saw that police brutality is actually VERY uncommon. I believe this whole-heartedly. I think police officers are very brave people, but like all people with power, sometimes it'll go to their head. All in all I think the media is certainly not helping, but I don't think the police are bad in any way. Every job has its bad seeds. I actually feel bad for the police just because they have to deal with people harassing THEM now just because everyone is so scared they're going to have their rights violated.

@Keithy Very well put!! It's way too easy to see the bad press about the police. It is much more difficult to see the good and positive things law enforcement does for the communites in which they serve. So I take the time to seek out the positive.

thank you for your input

You are throwing this question on forums about a police mod, while being yourself an officer. Don't you think those questions are a bit biased? Not wanting to be rude, but to me it sounds a bit like you are just looking for people to comfort yourself in your opinion.

About your questions, I think this is not only a matter of police brutality, but also the mistakes police officers do. Pulling your gun and emptying your magazine into someone's body just because you thought you saw something threatening shouldn't be applauded as "Wow he reacted so quick, good job, here, take a treat". Police officers in the US seem to be much more keen to respond to a situation by violence than in other countries.

Edited July 19, 201510 yr by Hystery

You are throwing this question on forums about a police mod, while being yourself an officer. Don't you think those questions aren't a bit biased? Not wanting to be rude, but to me it sounds a bit like you are just looking for people to comfort yourself in your opinion.

About your questions, I think this is not only a matter of police brutality, but also the mistakes police officers do. Pulling your gun and emptying your magazine into someone's body just because you thought you saw something threatening shouldn't be applauded as "Wow he reacted so quick, good job, here, take a treat". Police officers in the US seem to be much more keen to respond to a situation by violence than in other countries.

The United Statss has a notably larger population than other countries, the third largest population in the world to be exact. It's also the most diverse of the top three largest countries. This can easily play a factor in crime and such along those lines, but that's a completely different discussion. 

Getting back to the discussion at hand, which we've had several times in the past might I add, American police make presumptions because those presumptions have a high chance of being correct in America. What am I saying? When a police officer in America knocks on your house door, they don't stand directly in front of the door. Why don't they? Because there is always a possibility that the person on the other side has a weapon of some sort, and could decide to discharge that weapon at the door. This would likely kill the officer. To prevent this from happening, officers don't stand directly in front of the door when they knock. If we look over to a country such as the UK, this probably isn't an issue there. Police probably don't need to stand to the side, because the chance of someone discharging a weapon isn't as high. What's my point? Police in America do what they feel necessary to keep our streets safe; and to keep themselves safe. One wrong assumption can be the difference between them being dead, or someone behind that door being dead. 

Edited July 19, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle

 

• Does the media create a public expectation of what they think, police should or should not be doing or doing different? (Have they created something that just isn't there)
• What is the actual percentage of REAL as opposed to NOT REAL cases of police brutality? (We are dealing dishonest human beings at times)
• Do you think the Police is becoming Too Militarized? (I say we have to keep up with what the bad guy throws at us)
• Is there not enough education on what policing and law enforcement is?.....and should the public really know everything? (Tactics, SOP's etc..)

For the most part these topics have already been covered in other threads so I'll keep my answers short as I hate repeating myself all the time.

1. Yes

2. There is police brutality that occurs in this country but it isn't as rampant as the media would like you to believe.

3. For the most part no. There are a few agencies with equipment out there that I believe is a little excessive (MRAPs) but I also think they only took that equipment because it was free as opposed to buying something that would be more appropriate but also costing more money.

4. No, there isn't enough education and if people want to know more about law enforcement tactics and issues then I encourage them to educate themselves on it. However I don't think the public really wants to know everything because it is scary, it is gruesome, and it isn't nice. I have seen some horrible things on calls, things that no one in the public could even imagine and I'm okay with that. I respond to those calls and deal with those things so that others don't have to see that kind of stuff. What I would rather see education be spent on is criminal statutes, case law, and constitutional rights because there are far too many people telling police officers what the law is or what their rights are when 90% of the time they don't have a clue what they are talking about. What they are saying is either taken out of context or completely wrong.

Police officers in the US seem to be much more keen to respond to a situation by violence than in other countries.

That is because our country is more violent than most other countries. We have a much larger population and more violent crimes than most other 1st world countries and as an American I am not proud of that and I definitely think it is an issue that needs to be addressed somehow.

What's my point? Police in America do what they feel necessary to keep our streets safe; and to keep themselves safe. One wrong assumption can be the difference between them being dead, or someone behind that door being dead. 

Which brings the problem of violence in the population as l3ubba said, that really need to be addressed. This kind of behavior is actually spreading world wide like a plague. Every day, I see more and more people being rude, lacking good manners or having access of violence and rage. As if humanity was becoming more and more keen to slash the throat of their neighbours. Violence in every day is a strong issue nowadays.

Edited July 19, 201510 yr by Hystery

Which brings the problem of violence in the population as l3ubba said, that really need to be addressed. This kind of behavior is actually spreading world wide like a plague. Every day, I see more and more people being rude, lacking good manners or having access of violence and rage. As if humanity was becoming more and more keen to slash the throat of their neighbours. Violence in every day is a strong issue nowadays.

Well, I believe that this is primarily a result of parenting incompetency. Not everyone is competent enough to successfully raise children, hence not everyone should have children. The source of this spike in violence is quite easy to reach. If we look at this in a chronological manner, what makes violence increase? Well, let's take a look:

Child is born in a rough neighborhood. Child goes to school with terrible educational standards and teaching qualities. Child receives a crap education. Parents at home don't teach the child basic values such as respect, order, and maturity. Child grows up thinking the rest of the world is exactly the same way as his hometown neighborhood. This makes the child not give a damn. Child drops out of high school, turns 18, and is now treated like an adult. Our current education system has failed him at this point. At this point, the "child" doesn't have an education, doesn't have any principle of basic human values, doesn't know right from wrong, doesn't fully understand how economics work, and doesn't have any sufficient guidance from a higher figure such as a parent. Now the "child" isn't making enough money to support himself, let alone a small family if he's had unprotected sex; nor does he have the education or skills required to attain an efficient job. This "child" really only has one option at this point, take what he needs from someone else, crime. Now, he's broken into someone's home, beaten or killed someone, and got himself thrown into jail. What was my purpose in sharing this? To provide an example of a failed child. 

This is the problem that we have here in America. We need to start with holding parents accountable, and ensuring that our schools are educating our youth enough to be self sufficient and successful after their education has been accomplished. We need an education system that recognizes ALL students, not just those who exceed the standards or fall short of them, but those students who continue to try their best and still fail. 

Of course, this is just my opinion. 

Edited July 19, 201510 yr by TheDivineHustle

The question is simply about policing in the United States of America. In sight of recent events, and in your own opinion, have we failed as members of the Law Enforcement community or for some of you that may not have LE experience as non-bias third party? (I say non-bias, but I acknowledge the fact this site is, for the most part, pro-LEO)

Some questions you should ask yourself are: 

• Does the media create a public expectation of what they think, police should or should not be doing or doing different? (Have they created something that just isn't there)
• What is the actual percentage of REAL as opposed to NOT REAL cases of police brutality? (We are dealing dishonest human beings at times)
• Do you think the Police is becoming Too Militarized? (I say we have to keep up with what the bad guy throws at us)
• Is there not enough education on what policing and law enforcement is?.....and should the public really know everything? (Tactics, SOP's etc..)

I encourage and invite anyone who wishes to give their opinion on this matter to do so. 

The only thing I ask is that you give semi-educated responses and not "F*** the Police" comments (It will only display your ignorance) AND that you show everyone who posts on this topic the same amount of respect for their views, as you would want to be shown, for yours

(Also, I would enjoy to see members from different countries)

Thank you!

 

1. Yes they do. 

2. As a citizen of another country I can't know the truth. I guess it happens, but during my time in the US (for example, I spent about a year in Baltimore, a city suffering from crime) I saw no cases of it. Sometimes officers acted harsh, but it was totally reasonable. (that's why I was astonished when I learned about B-more riots).

3. When people blame the US cops for being too militarized I laugh because I know militarized police too well. The whole police system in my country is military-like. They use the same weaponry and vehicles as the army even during standard patrols.

4. Again, I can't speak for the US citizens. I am heavily interested in American law enforcement, I search for the info and generally what I want I can find. Not sure how it is for Americans in general.

As a semi-related to the police from a different country (russia) I may say that I had several interactions with the police forces in different countries. So far, the UK and the US cops were the best. I still remember a B-more county officer who, when I told him about myself, opened up his Suburban and showed me the vehicle and the equipment. 

Thank you all for your opinions.....

Lol please note that I am not looking for anyone to "make me feel better about my opinions" trust me, I would be in the wrong profession if I cared what people thought about me or tried to conform my views to others. And I like my own opinions, that's why they are mine

I am simply interested in hearing what others opinions are. I have actually asked similar questions on "less police friendly" forums as well.....so as for the biased thing, sure maybe on this site, but I am interested to hear what individuals from other countries have to say about policing in America

1. Yes they do. 

2. As a citizen of another country I can't know the truth. I guess it happens, but during my time in the US (for example, I spent about a year in Baltimore, a city suffering from crime) I saw no cases of it. Sometimes officers acted harsh, but it was totally reasonable. (that's why I was astonished when I learned about B-more riots).

3. When people blame the US cops for being too militarized I laugh because I know militarized police too well. The whole police system in my country is military-like. They use the same weaponry and vehicles as the army even during standard patrols.

4. Again, I can't speak for the US citizens. I am heavily interested in American law enforcement, I search for the info and generally what I want I can find. Not sure how it is for Americans in general.

As a semi-related to the police from a different country (russia) I may say that I had several interactions with the police forces in different countries. So far, the UK and the US cops were the best. I still remember a B-more county officer who, when I told him about myself, opened up his Suburban and showed me the vehicle and the equipment. 

thank you this is very interesting. I saw Russia in there, is that where you are from? 

For the most part these topics have already been covered in other threads so I'll keep my answers short as I hate repeating myself all the time.

1. Yes

2. There is police brutality that occurs in this country but it isn't as rampant as the media would like you to believe.

3. For the most part no. There are a few agencies with equipment out there that I believe is a little excessive (MRAPs) but I also think they only took that equipment because it was free as opposed to buying something that would be more appropriate but also costing more money.

4. No, there isn't enough education and if people want to know more about law enforcement tactics and issues then I encourage them to educate themselves on it. However I don't think the public really wants to know everything because it is scary, it is gruesome, and it isn't nice. I have seen some horrible things on calls, things that no one in the public could even imagine and I'm okay with that. I respond to those calls and deal with those things so that others don't have to see that kind of stuff. What I would rather see education be spent on is criminal statutes, case law, and constitutional rights because there are far too many people telling police officers what the law is or what their rights are when 90% of the time they don't have a clue what they are talking about. What they are saying is either taken out of context or completely wrong.

That is because our country is more violent than most other countries. We have a much larger population and more violent crimes than most other 1st world countries and as an American I am not proud of that and I definitely think it is an issue that needs to be addressed somehow.

I can really appreciate what you stated in number 4....people don't need to know everything, most wouldn't understand it anyway

I can really appreciate what you stated in number 4....people don't need to know everything, most wouldn't understand it anyway

I don't think that they (the public) don't need to know, I am more than happy to talk about stuff that I've seen and share my experiences, I just think they don't want to know.

I don't think that they (the public) don't need to know, I am more than happy to talk about stuff that I've seen and share my experiences, I just think they don't want to know.

I'm a bit curious as to your opinion on this civilian perspective of law enforcement duties. Apparently everyone seems to know exactly how law enforcement should operate, judging their every action; what do you think of this? 

I'm a bit curious as to your opinion on this civilian perspective of law enforcement duties. Apparently everyone seems to know exactly how law enforcement should operate, judging their every action; what do you think of this? 

That is a suggestive question. I think it is pretty obvious that I don't like people who don't know what they are talking about trying to tell professionals how to do their jobs but that is true of any profession, not just law enforcement. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and to ask questions since they pay taxes and are the ones receiving services from the police however they should also realize that they won't be able to understand everything since they don't have the same training, experience, or knowledge that police officers do.

thank you this is very interesting. I saw Russia in there, is that where you are from? 

 

Yes, that's correct. 

If we look over to a country such as the UK, this probably isn't an issue there.

I can confirm this, in the last 5/6 years there has only been 1 gun raid, turned out to be a false alarm.
Crime map for my area: http://www.police.uk/north-wales/DCW09/crime/

• Does the media create a public expectation of what they think, police should or should not be doing or doing different? (Have they created something that just isn't there)

 This is the same logic that pro-gun rights people use after mass shootings. I'm afraid that this gets too close to willful ignorance; if you stop covering a story, it doesn't go away. I'm sure that police departments would love it if CNN wasn't at their doorstep when they gun someone down in the streets. I think this point is an attempt to stop talking about the problem instead of fixing it. As for it not being there....its there. Research has shown that violent crime (along with officer fatalities) decreases, and police shootings increase. Logically, we can conclude that officers are shooting suspects for less violent crimes, which means that use of force policies should be reviewed.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/) 

What is the actual percentage of REAL as opposed to NOT REAL cases of police brutality? (We are dealing dishonest human beings at times)

Unfortunately, we might never know. Police departments are not required to submit cases to the FBI, and not surprisingly, they don't. And as for cases being real vs. not real, we run into another issue. Who investigates the merit of a complaint or incident? Internal Investigations? Internal Investigations aren't like they are on TV, Hollywood needed a bad guy for cop shows. The "cowboy cop that doesn't play by the rules but for the right reason" is a fictional character. In reality, cops stand by each other. "The thin blue line". Unless presented by overwhelming evidence (I.E. Michael Slager), a supervisor will stand by the statements of his officer.

This is not supported by statistics, because it is impossible to find. What I have noticed, in almost all of the shooting cases, the officer simply had to state that the suspect posed a threat in any way. Its not use of force, its escalation of force. Police are supposed to de-escalate situations so that they can make arrests. But as we've seen happen, and lets pretend like we don't, officers often show up to a scene and escalate the situation until it is dangerous for them, and then shots get fired. Most people look at that situation and say "Well, it was dangerous for the cop, so the shooting was justified", but pay no attention to how the officer could've handled the situation differently.

Do you think the Police is becoming Too Militarized? (I say we have to keep up with what the bad guy throws at us)

No, but when you give a boy a toy, he's going to want to play with it. The problem in my opinion, is when they can use their military gear. We shouldn't see an MRAP and 20 cops with Hk416s at the house of a non-violent drug offender or a peaceful protest. Small towns with under 5,000 residents, 20 officers, and almost no crime are purchasing IED-resistant armored vehicle. In my opinion, that kind of gear should be limited to large cities, populated counties, and state police. I don't think Story County, Iowa has an IED problem. The War on Terror produced mass-hysteria and with that, a huge spike in defense spending, and the War or Drugs has given them an outlet to use their toys. Now instead of funding police departments needs, they're just dumping overkill military gear because the government was swindled into buying more than they needed for a war we probably shouldn't have fought in the first place- but that's besides the point. I was the first one to defend the use of Bearcats and assault rifles after the Boston bombing, because they needed that gear to stay safe. Again, its more of a question of when instead of what.

After the North Hollywood Shootout, police departments realized they were outgunned and began issuing .223 rifles to patrol officers. That is a perfect example of "keeping up with the bad guys".

Is there not enough education on what policing and law enforcement is?.....and should the public really know everything? (Tactics, SOP's etc..)

Like the first point, I think this is an attempt, unintentional or intentional , to shut down the conversation. "Pro-LEO" people can always say "Well you don't understand what its like to be a cop, so shut up". I'm not going to judge the tactics of military units because I have no base of knowledge. But when it comes to law enforcement, we all do. They're on our streets every day, interacting with us. If I get pulled over for not signalling, and the cop asks me to step out of the car without probable cause, I don't need to be "educated" on policing to know that he's overstepping his bounds. In that situation, isn't he the one that needs to be educated on policing? If I'm not educated on policing, I would love to be. Because from the vantage point of a citizen, I'm seeing some systemic problems with law enforcement. If postal workers ran over this many people, or if firefighters impaled this many people with axes, we might think there's something a little wrong there....

 

Disclaimer: I have great respect for police officers and the work they do. I've never uttered the words "fuck the police" and I never will.

 

 

 

 

 

 This is the same logic that pro-gun rights people use after mass shootings. I'm afraid that this gets too close to willful ignorance; if you stop covering a story, it doesn't go away. I'm sure that police departments would love it if CNN wasn't at their doorstep when they gun someone down in the streets. I think this point is an attempt to stop talking about the problem instead of fixing it. As for it not being there....its there. Research has shown that violent crime (along with officer fatalities) decreases, and police shootings increase. Logically, we can conclude that officers are shooting suspects for less violent crimes, which means that use of force policies should be reviewed.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/08/15/how-the-number-of-justified-police-homicides-has-changed-since-the-1990s/) 

Unfortunately, we might never know. Police departments are not required to submit cases to the FBI, and not surprisingly, they don't. And as for cases being real vs. not real, we run into another issue. Who investigates the merit of a complaint or incident? Internal Investigations? Internal Investigations aren't like they are on TV, Hollywood needed a bad guy for cop shows. The "cowboy cop that doesn't play by the rules but for the right reason" is a fictional character. In reality, cops stand by each other. "The thin blue line". Unless presented by overwhelming evidence (I.E. Michael Slager), a supervisor will stand by the statements of his officer.

This is not supported by statistics, because it is impossible to find. What I have noticed, in almost all of the shooting cases, the officer simply had to state that the suspect posed a threat in any way. Its not use of force, its escalation of force. Police are supposed to de-escalate situations so that they can make arrests. But as we've seen happen, and lets pretend like we don't, officers often show up to a scene and escalate the situation until it is dangerous for them, and then shots get fired. Most people look at that situation and say "Well, it was dangerous for the cop, so the shooting was justified", but pay no attention to how the officer could've handled the situation differently.

No, but when you give a boy a toy, he's going to want to play with it. The problem in my opinion, is when they can use their military gear. We shouldn't see an MRAP and 20 cops with Hk416s at the house of a non-violent drug offender or a peaceful protest. Small towns with under 5,000 residents, 20 officers, and almost no crime are purchasing IED-resistant armored vehicle. In my opinion, that kind of gear should be limited to large cities, populated counties, and state police. I don't think Story County, Iowa has an IED problem. The War on Terror produced mass-hysteria and with that, a huge spike in defense spending, and the War or Drugs has given them an outlet to use their toys. Now instead of funding police departments needs, they're just dumping overkill military gear because the government was swindled into buying more than they needed for a war we probably shouldn't have fought in the first place- but that's besides the point. I was the first one to defend the use of Bearcats and assault rifles after the Boston bombing, because they needed that gear to stay safe. Again, its more of a question of when instead of what.

After the North Hollywood Shootout, police departments realized they were outgunned and began issuing .223 rifles to patrol officers. That is a perfect example of "keeping up with the bad guys".

Like the first point, I think this is an attempt, unintentional or intentional , to shut down the conversation. "Pro-LEO" people can always say "Well you don't understand what its like to be a cop, so shut up". I'm not going to judge the tactics of military units because I have no base of knowledge. But when it comes to law enforcement, we all do. They're on our streets every day, interacting with us. If I get pulled over for not signalling, and the cop asks me to step out of the car without probable cause, I don't need to be "educated" on policing to know that he's overstepping his bounds. In that situation, isn't he the one that needs to be educated on policing? If I'm not educated on policing, I would love to be. Because from the vantage point of a citizen, I'm seeing some systemic problems with law enforcement. If postal workers ran over this many people, or if firefighters impaled this many people with axes, we might think there's something a little wrong there....

He isn't saying that it is being covered too much he is saying that the way the media is covering it is wrong. Look at any recent case of a white officer using force against a black suspect. The moment the story hits the media automatically jumps into the race aspect whether there is evidence that racism was involved or not. I am all for covering these stories but they should be responsible journalist (too much to ask for today) and report facts, not bullshit just to get ratings. And are we really able to conclude that officers are shooting suspects for less violent crimes? What if, for whatever reason, police shootings were low because police were able to arrest violent offenders without deadly force and today they aren't able to do that. And before you jump and say it (because I know you will) that isn't necessarily due to lack of training on the officers faults, it could be that the violent offenders that are out there are less willing to let officers take them into custody and want to go down fighting. My point being that you cannot automatically assume that the reason for those statistics is because police are shooting non-violent offenders.

 

And how exactly do you know anything about internal investigators? This is essentially the same argument as "all cops are dirty", you don't know all internal investigators (I'd be surprised if you even knew one) and I'm willing to bet you know next to nothing about how IA actually works. What about agencies that have outside investigators either from another agency or civilians (or combination of both)? Are they crooked too? Show me some evidence that IA is a broken system and I will start believing you.

 

Again you are making a huge assumption based on no evidence. You notice in almost all police shootings the officer just had to say the suspect posed a threat? And out of all the police shootings you have reviewed all or most of them? Don't worry, I already know the answer to that question. You are basing this huge assumption on the police shootings you have seen which have either received national media coverage and/or were posted on Youtube. Are all situations handled perfectly? No, police officers are not perfect. We have the luxury of sitting back and reviewing all of the facts and evidence and replaying the video 20 times in slow motion to Monday morning quarterback the officer's every move. Police officers don't have that luxury, they have to make decisions on the spot without hesitation and that is why if you are familiar with case law (Graham v. Connor specifically if you are interested) you would know that when a jury is looking at an officer's actions they must judge it from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight.

 

For the most part I have not seen any problem with the way police employ these tools. When doing a raid on a non-violent drug offender you are going to want to have these tools readily available because most of these guys do have weapons to protect themselves. Drug dealers get robbed so they typically protect themselves in some manner. Why wait for an officer to take an AK47 round to the chest to call in the SWAT team? And despite what the media tells you there are still lots of raids that are done without this equipment and without SWAT teams. One case that hits close to home for me was in February of 2011. Sgt Tom Baitinger and Officer Jeffrey Yaslowitz were shot and killed assisting a US Marshal serve a warrant on a violent offender who had a long and violent criminal record and had a warrant for a violent felony. There was no SWAT team, no armored vehicles, or other military style equipment. They went into the house where the suspect was staying and while searching the attic were ambushed and shot. Both Sgt Baitinger and Officer Yaslowitz were killed while the US Marshal was wounded. This resulted in a very long standoff and firefight with the responding SWAT team and eventual death of the suspect. So my point being is that there are still lots of raids that go on without this equipment and also that we shouldn't have to wait for someone to die to call in the SWAT team. I know you don't understand how dangerous clearing a building is (especially one that a suspect is familiar with and has time to set up) but I can assure you that it is extremely dangerous.

 

First off, no. Again you are assuming he is saying that we shouldn't educate people. Like I said in my post, I am all for educating people and I would actually prefer it to be that way so that citizens understand better. The issue I see is that 1) there will always be people who refuse to open their mind to certain topics and 2) I think sub-conciously people don't really want to know what police officers see, I think they are scared of knowing (no shame in that if they are). Next, when it comes to law enforcement I would say very few people have a realistic base of knowledge. Why do you think you do? What education or experience do you have that gives you that knowledge?

And for your future reference a police officer can ask you to step out of your vehicle for any reason when on a traffic stop. But I'm sure with your "base of knowledge" in law enforcement you are familiar with Pennsylvania v. Mimms where the US Supreme Court said that if an officer asks you to step out of your vehicle on a traffic stop you must comply. Just goes to prove my point that despite how much people think they know about law enforcement chances are they don't really know what they are talking about, they are usually basing their knowledge off of what they have heard from a friend, read on a website (without cross referencing), or saw on TV or Youtube. Where as police officers go to schools and learn this stuff from law books and lawyers (yes lawyers teach police officers in the academy). So while I am more than happy to educate people don't automatically assume that your "knowledge" is correct, especially when a professional in that field tells you that you are wrong.

He isn't saying that it is being covered too much he is saying that the way the media is covering it is wrong. Look at any recent case of a white officer using force against a black suspect. The moment the story hits the media automatically jumps into the race aspect whether there is evidence that racism was involved or not. I am all for covering these stories but they should be responsible journalist (too much to ask for today) and report facts, not bullshit just to get ratings.

Sure, maybe journalists should be more responsible. But the black community is making this all up, there are problems that exist between African Americans and their police departments. This is well documented and has been going on for decades across the country. I'm not going to find you statistics. because if you don't have that base of knowledge at this point, its quite frankly not even worth discussing it with you.

And are we really able to conclude that officers are shooting suspects for less violent crimes? What if, for whatever reason, police shootings were low because police were able to arrest violent offenders without deadly force and today they aren't able to do that. And before you jump and say it (because I know you will) that isn't necessarily due to lack of training on the officers faults, it could be that the violent offenders that are out there are less willing to let officers take them into custody and want to go down fighting. My point being that you cannot automatically assume that the reason for those statistics is because police are shooting non-violent offenders.

Why aren't they able to do that? You keep asking me for evidence, but can you show me anything that shows that criminals are more willing to "go down fighting" now as opposed to a few years ago? Because not only is that likely not supported by evidence, it makes no logical sense. It is more likely logically that police officers have collectively set a bar for justified shootings, and its just our new normal.

And how exactly do you know anything about internal investigators? This is essentially the same argument as "all cops are dirty", you don't know all internal investigators (I'd be surprised if you even knew one) and I'm willing to bet you know next to nothing about how IA actually works. What about agencies that have outside investigators either from another agency or civilians (or combination of both)? Are they crooked too? Show me some evidence that IA is a broken system and I will start believing you.

That's not the same as "all cops are dirty". internal Investigations is literally internal. Its the police policing the police, it shouldn't be surprising that they don't find wrongdoing.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140106/10162825772/internal-affairs-divisions-dismissing-99-misconduct-cases-against-new-jersey-police-officers.shtml

I doubt you'll read this, but at least I'm doing my part. 

Also, remember the District Attorneys in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner case? Both DAs had strong ties to the police departments, by both familial and financial ties. The DA in the Eric Garner case relied heavily on campaign donations from the Police union, shouldn't be surprising he didn't bat an eye when they chocked out a guy in the streets.

Again you are making a huge assumption based on no evidence. You notice in almost all police shootings the officer just had to say the suspect posed a threat? And out of all the police shootings you have reviewed all or most of them? Don't worry, I already know the answer to that question. You are basing this huge assumption on the police shootings you have seen which have either received national media coverage and/or were posted on Youtube. Are all situations handled perfectly? No, police officers are not perfect. We have the luxury of sitting back and reviewing all of the facts and evidence and replaying the video 20 times in slow motion to Monday morning quarterback the officer's every move. Police officers don't have that luxury, they have to make decisions on the spot without hesitation and that is why if you are familiar with case law (Graham v. Connor specifically if you are interested) you would know that when a jury is looking at an officer's actions they must judge it from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight.

This is the same argument that gets used again and again. "You don't know what its like to be a cop, you shouldn't judge". Its completely ridiculous. We can't keep saying "well its a tough job, split-second decisions have to be made" every single time. I keep saying this, but if a firemen fucked up this much and this bad, we'd be begging them to review their training. We don't have to be firemen to do that. I'm not a drone pilot but I have every right to be pissed off that they kill a lot of innocent people.

Its not like there are just a bunch of videos online and that's clouding everyone's judgement, these videos and stories pop up with great frequency, and often similar circumstances. 

And if you're going to put yourself in the officer's perspective, you'd be a fool to not include things like anger, paranoia, embarrassment, insecurity, and sometimes unintelligence. They're humans, as I'm sure you'd like to attest to. Remember that cop that went nuts on innocent black teenagers at the pool in Texas? He tripped and fell as he was running like an action hero, is it possible he was angry and embarrassed about that, and took it out on the people he felt he could take it out on? The "cops are humans" thing goes in all directions.

For the most part I have not seen any problem with the way police employ these tools. When doing a raid on a non-violent drug offender you are going to want to have these tools readily available because most of these guys do have weapons to protect themselves. Drug dealers get robbed so they typically protect themselves in some manner. Why wait for an officer to take an AK47 round to the chest to call in the SWAT team? And despite what the media tells you there are still lots of raids that are done without this equipment and without SWAT teams. One case that hits close to home for me was in February of 2011. Sgt Tom Baitinger and Officer Jeffrey Yaslowitz were shot and killed assisting a US Marshal serve a warrant on a violent offender who had a long and violent criminal record and had a warrant for a violent felony. There was no SWAT team, no armored vehicles, or other military style equipment. They went into the house where the suspect was staying and while searching the attic were ambushed and shot. Both Sgt Baitinger and Officer Yaslowitz were killed while the US Marshal was wounded. This resulted in a very long standoff and firefight with the responding SWAT team and eventual death of the suspect. So my point being is that there are still lots of raids that go on without this equipment and also that we shouldn't have to wait for someone to die to call in the SWAT team. I know you don't understand how dangerous clearing a building is (especially one that a suspect is familiar with and has time to set up) but I can assure you that it is extremely dangerous

What evidence do you have that supports the idea that non-violent drug consumers have guns? And the example you used is irrelevant. I brought up the use of military gear on non-violent offenders, and you told me  story about how cops didn't use military gear on extremely violent offender. That is literally the opposite of what I was talking about.

And either explain what your experience is or stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Everyone knows how dangerous clearing a building is. Unless you've done it yourself, put your experience card back up your sleeve. Its useless on an anonymous internet forum.

First off, no. Again you are assuming he is saying that we shouldn't educate people. Like I said in my post, I am all for educating people and I would actually prefer it to be that way so that citizens understand better. The issue I see is that 1) there will always be people who refuse to open their mind to certain topics and 2) I think sub-conciously people don't really want to know what police officers see, I think they are scared of knowing (no shame in that if they are). Next, when it comes to law enforcement I would say very few people have a realistic base of knowledge. Why do you think you do? What education or experience do you have that gives you that knowledge?

That was his question. ".....and should the public really know everything?"

You claim to want to know whats in people's subconscious, but yet you pay no attention to the victim's. A guy moves awkwardly and gets gunned down, and you say that police officers are trained to give clear commands. Why do you actively find ways for police officers not to be at fault? A questionable shooting comes up, and you side with the officer instead of seeing what he could have done differently. I'm not trying to insult you, but you can't say that others need to open their minds when you look up to shooting suspects as infallible authority figures. You only debate up until a point, and when you don't like what I have to say you simply say "well you don't know what its like to be a cop, its a hard job", or in some other words.

 

Sure, maybe journalists should be more responsible. But the black community is making this all up, there are problems that exist between African Americans and their police departments. This is well documented and has been going on for decades across the country. I'm not going to find you statistics. because if you don't have that base of knowledge at this point, its quite frankly not even worth discussing it with you.

Why aren't they able to do that? You keep asking me for evidence, but can you show me anything that shows that criminals are more willing to "go down fighting" now as opposed to a few years ago? Because not only is that likely not supported by evidence, it makes no logical sense. It is more likely logically that police officers have collectively set a bar for justified shootings, and its just our new normal.

That's not the same as "all cops are dirty". internal Investigations is literally internal. Its the police policing the police, it shouldn't be surprising that they don't find wrongdoing.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140106/10162825772/internal-affairs-divisions-dismissing-99-misconduct-cases-against-new-jersey-police-officers.shtml

I doubt you'll read this, but at least I'm doing my part. 

Also, remember the District Attorneys in the Michael Brown and Eric Garner case? Both DAs had strong ties to the police departments, by both familial and financial ties. The DA in the Eric Garner case relied heavily on campaign donations from the Police union, shouldn't be surprising he didn't bat an eye when they chocked out a guy in the streets.

This is the same argument that gets used again and again. "You don't know what its like to be a cop, you shouldn't judge". Its completely ridiculous. We can't keep saying "well its a tough job, split-second decisions have to be made" every single time. I keep saying this, but if a firemen fucked up this much and this bad, we'd be begging them to review their training. We don't have to be firemen to do that. I'm not a drone pilot but I have every right to be pissed off that they kill a lot of innocent people.

Its not like there are just a bunch of videos online and that's clouding everyone's judgement, these videos and stories pop up with great frequency, and often similar circumstances. 

And if you're going to put yourself in the officer's perspective, you'd be a fool to not include things like anger, paranoia, embarrassment, insecurity, and sometimes unintelligence. They're humans, as I'm sure you'd like to attest to. Remember that cop that went nuts on innocent black teenagers at the pool in Texas? He tripped and fell as he was running like an action hero, is it possible he was angry and embarrassed about that, and took it out on the people he felt he could take it out on? The "cops are humans" thing goes in all directions.

What evidence do you have that supports the idea that non-violent drug consumers have guns? And the example you used is irrelevant. I brought up the use of military gear on non-violent offenders, and you told me  story about how cops didn't use military gear on extremely violent offender. That is literally the opposite of what I was talking about.

And either explain what your experience is or stop acting like you know what you're talking about. Everyone knows how dangerous clearing a building is. Unless you've done it yourself, put your experience card back up your sleeve. Its useless on an anonymous internet forum.

That was his question. ".....and should the public really know everything?"

You claim to want to know whats in people's subconscious, but yet you pay no attention to the victim's. A guy moves awkwardly and gets gunned down, and you say that police officers are trained to give clear commands. Why do you actively find ways for police officers not to be at fault? A questionable shooting comes up, and you side with the officer instead of seeing what he could have done differently. I'm not trying to insult you, but you can't say that others need to open their minds when you look up to shooting suspects as infallible authority figures. You only debate up until a point, and when you don't like what I have to say you simply say "well you don't know what its like to be a cop, its a hard job", or in some other words.

 

I never said there wasn't a problem with police and the African American community. I was simply saying that the media's coverage on recent stories was completely irresponsible in most cases.

 

Wait, so I suggest that there could possibly be another reason for the an increase in police shooting which you immediately shoot down and demand evidence then you turn around and say it is "more logical" that the bar has just been set lower for deadly force yet you offer no evidence. How are you going to say that since I have no evidence that my possible explanation is less logical than your possible explanation that also has no evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements?

 

So you are saying that it is impossible for police to investigate their own people honestly? The article you posted actually helps prove my point. I say that there is only a small percentage of bad cops out there and the article you linked says about 8% of complaints against officers are sustained nationwide. Why is it that so hard to believe that what police do is often not illegal or incorrect? What you seem to forget is that in both the Eric Gardner and Michael Brown cases was that those officers both went to a grand jury and the grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict them at trial. So the jurors were the ones who decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, not the DA.

 

And yet again you completely twist what I said. Please quote where I said we shouldn't judge police officers? I think you are just getting upset at the fact that I am giving you laws and indisputable facts. What I actually said (since you apparently didn't read it) you are basing your assumption on the videos you have seen in the media and on Youtube, that is only a very small percentage of police shootings and most people only see the controversial ones because that is the only ones the media wants to cover, it gets them ratings. Nobody wants to hear about the police shooting where a guy pulls a gun and shoots a police officer in the neck and the suspect is killed by return fire (if you really do follow police shootings as much as you claim to you will know which shooting I'm referring to). Those are completely justified shootings, the media and the general public, for the most part, don't care about those. Next, and I think the most important part, is that I referenced case law that says when judging a police officers action it must be done based on the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene, not 20/20 hindsight. No where in there did I say we shouldn't judge police officers. If you have as much knowledge in law enforcement as you say you do then you would be very familiar with Graham v. Connor because it is one of the biggest case laws in law enforcement.

 

You are right, I have no statistics to back up what I said. I am simply basing my opinion off of what I have seen and I have seen that the majority of big time drug dealers have at least one weapon in their home. And I see you completely missed the point I was trying to make with the two St. Pete officers. My point was that there are still lots of warrants that are served without using all this military equipment and that we shouldn't have to wait until someone gets injured or killed to call in a SWAT team. If someone has a felony warrant that should be reason enough to use a SWAT team.

I have cleared buildings before and know exactly what my experience is. What is it that you want to hear? Do you want me to tell you stories? Do you want to see my resume? I'm going to guess the answer to that is no, because it wouldn't help your argument.

 

I didn't say that I know what is in people's subconscious, I stated my opinion and that is all it is, an opinion. And no, I don't automatically side with the officer I use the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the case law I already referenced (the one you seemed to ignore) that says when judging an officer it must be done from the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight. So when I am looking at these cases I try to place myself in that officer's shoes and think what would I do if I were in that situation based on the knowledge that officer had at the time. Sure, I think lots of things could have been done differently in many of those cases but most of the time when I think that it has been after I have thought about the entire situation and analyzed everything. There are plenty of times where I think that a situation wasn't handled in the best way possible but based on what they knew at the time their use of force was justifiable. And please note that no where in the paragraph (or this entire post) do I say that "cops have a tough job and you shouldn't judge them". What I have said is that it is more difficult for people to judge the actions of an officer because they do not have the training or experience the police officers do and as I have already proven with your stepping out of the car example there is no "base of knowledge" when it comes to law enforcement, it is not something that you just automatically know, people go to school and train for years to gain that knowledge it isn't simply handed out.

I never said there wasn't a problem with police and the African American community. I was simply saying that the media's coverage on recent stories was completely irresponsible in most cases.

Well if the problems there, why not report on it? You can have whatever opinion you want on the way they cover it, but reporting on the human condition will always be controversial.

Wait, so I suggest that there could possibly be another reason for the an increase in police shooting which you immediately shoot down and demand evidence then you turn around and say it is "more logical" that the bar has just been set lower for deadly force yet you offer no evidence. How are you going to say that since I have no evidence that my possible explanation is less logical than your possible explanation that also has no evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your statements

Well neither of us have evidence, so its not hypocritical. Concluding that one line of work has undergone slight systemic psychological changes is more logical than a nation-wide boom of suicidal criminals. This whole time you've been shooting me down for not having evidence, but you have presented me with none. You've been calling me out out on making cultural observations, so I'd be a fool to let you do so without holding you to the same standard you've been holding me to.

So you are saying that it is impossible for police to investigate their own people honestly? The article you posted actually helps prove my point. I say that there is only a small percentage of bad cops out there and the article you linked says about 8% of complaints against officers are sustained nationwide. Why is it that so hard to believe that what police do is often not illegal or incorrect? What you seem to forget is that in both the Eric Gardner and Michael Brown cases was that those officers both went to a grand jury and the grand jury decided there was not enough evidence to convict them at trial. So the jurors were the ones who decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute, not the DA.

Would you send your friend to jail if there were no consequences to the alternative? Cop A shoots a suspect, and tells investigators that the suspect was reaching for his gun. You found no fingerprints on the gun or the holster, and the suspect was shot at point-blank. Very minor injuries to the officer indicating a struggle. You're friends with the supervisor in charge of him and he says Cop A is straight-arrow. Who do you believe? That's just a random scenario but that's sometimes the reality. Police shouldn't police themselves, especially when there's conflicts of interest.

 

As for the DAs, you're not entirely correct. I'm sure you'll hate the progressive news site, but its worth a read: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/11/lawrence-odonnell-rips-st-louis-prosecutor-for-making-it-impossible-for-darren-wilson-to-fail/

And yet again you completely twist what I said. Please quote where I said we shouldn't judge police officers? I think you are just getting upset at the fact that I am giving you laws and indisputable facts. What I actually said (since you apparently didn't read it) you are basing your assumption on the videos you have seen in the media and on Youtube, that is only a very small percentage of police shootings and most people only see the controversial ones because that is the only ones the media wants to cover, it gets them ratings. Nobody wants to hear about the police shooting where a guy pulls a gun and shoots a police officer in the neck and the suspect is killed by return fire (if you really do follow police shootings as much as you claim to you will know which shooting I'm referring to). Those are completely justified shootings, the media and the general public, for the most part, don't care about those. Next, and I think the most important part, is that I referenced case law that says when judging a police officers action it must be done based on the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene, not 20/20 hindsight. No where in there did I say we shouldn't judge police officers. If you have as much knowledge in law enforcement as you say you do then you would be very familiar with Graham v. Connor because it is one of the biggest case laws in law enforcement.

Right indisputable facts...so we're not disputing right now? Watching countless incident videos, reading plenty of articles and interviews, and analyzing personal experience is enough to paint a picture of a particular culture. In this case, police culture. You don't need a statistic that says "X % of cops are bad people" to know that systemic problems exist in an entity that interacts with us every single day.

If we held shootings of police officers to shootings of citizens, you'd be pretty frustrated right now. Out of all the interactions with citizens, how often does a police officer get shot? And why should the media care about an obviously justified shooting? There's no cultural analysis or systemic problem to be addressed, besides local news, it would be a completely pointless story on CNN and would actually be irresponsible journalism. The news doesn't cover Michael Brown because they think his life matters more than a police officer, they cover it because a large amount of people believe there is more to the overarching story than just a shooting. (Also, look on CNN. Their top story is a police officer that was shot and killed, so your point isn't even valid in the first place).

You are right, I have no statistics to back up what I said. I am simply basing my opinion off of what I have seen and I have seen that the majority of big time drug dealers have at least one weapon in their home. And I see you completely missed the point I was trying to make with the two St. Pete officers. My point was that there are still lots of warrants that are served without using all this military equipment and that we shouldn't have to wait until someone gets injured or killed to call in a SWAT team. If someone has a felony warrant that should be reason enough to use a SWAT team.

I have cleared buildings before and know exactly what my experience is. What is it that you want to hear? Do you want me to tell you stories? Do you want to see my resume? I'm going to guess the answer to that is no, because it wouldn't help your argument.

So you're allowed to make cultural analysis, but I'm not? Are you sure its not that darn media hyping up drug dealers? COPS (the show) only shows you the interesting stuff, right? Of course I know that drug dealers often have guns, but do you see how futile that point can be? You only let a picture be painted when you're willing to accept what the outcome looks like. And yeah, if someone has a dangerous criminal record police should take every precaution. Nobody's arguing that. But I can pull up plenty of stories when that's not the case, and the same gear was used.

This is the internet, we're all anonymous. I have no interest in what real-life experience an anonymous internet forum user claims to have. But if you're willing to swap experience, my brother lost three friends clearing buildings in Iraq. I know how dangerous it is, if his PTSD is any indication.

I didn't say that I know what is in people's subconscious, I stated my opinion and that is all it is, an opinion. And no, I don't automatically side with the officer I use the guidance issued by the US Supreme Court in the case law I already referenced (the one you seemed to ignore) that says when judging an officer it must be done from the perception of a reasonable officer at the scene rather than 20/20 hindsight. So when I am looking at these cases I try to place myself in that officer's shoes and think what would I do if I were in that situation based on the knowledge that officer had at the time. Sure, I think lots of things could have been done differently in many of those cases but most of the time when I think that it has been after I have thought about the entire situation and analyzed everything. There are plenty of times where I think that a situation wasn't handled in the best way possible but based on what they knew at the time their use of force was justifiable. And please note that no where in the paragraph (or this entire post) do I say that "cops have a tough job and you shouldn't judge them". What I have said is that it is more difficult for people to judge the actions of an officer because they do not have the training or experience the police officers do and as I have already proven with your stepping out of the car example there is no "base of knowledge" when it comes to law enforcement, it is not something that you just automatically know, people go to school and train for years to gain that knowledge it isn't simply handed out.

So you say that officers don't handle situations correctly from time to time, but yet you try to shut me down when I suggest  that perhaps there's room for improvement in the training? So your overall point seems to be "Cops aren't perfect but hey, what're you gonna do?" instead of  "cops have a tough job and you shouldn't judge them". Is that really so much better?

And my "getting out of the car" example was based on countless cases where an officer has ordered a suspect to get out of his car, and then proceeded to illegally search them without probable cause. So even then, the officer is still the one that needs to be "educated". So you're right, an officer can order you to get out of your car, but in a lot of the cases I've seen, that's often not the end of the encounter.