Yes, that is why I didn't believe what any of the witnesses said in the Ferguson case. If their claims were backed up by physical evidence (or at least not go against what the evidence said) I would have been more inclined to believe what they said. I don't understand what you mean things were wrong in that process? We were able to find out what really happened using forensic evidence and that meant that an innocent man was kept out of prison.

This isn't a thread about the killing of Michael Brown. If we keep bringing up different cases the thread will go on forever. I would be happy to talk about this in a thread dedicated to the topic.

Yes, I know there are officers that racially profile black men and women. Unfortunately there is still racism in America and law enforcement is not exempt from it either. However, that does not mean that every police officer is racist or racially profiles people and it doesn't mean that every time that a black person is stopped or there is an incident involving a use of force that the officer did so because they were black. I acknowledge actual racism, not this race baiting BS that the media puts out. There is a legal definition of reasonable suspicion and I feel like I have done enough research for you so far so I am not going to spoon feed it to you this time especially since you are probably just going to shoot it down and say that you don't agree with so it must be illogical.

No one is saying every officer is racist. And I didn't ask for the legal definition, I asked for the standard that police use in reality. Unless you think all police use the legal definitions, which would be laughable.

 

Where did I say that shooting him was the only option? You asked why the officers couldn't tase him or tackle him so I gave you very legitimate reasons why those two things were not options. No where did I state that the only option was to shoot him.

So if the reasons for not tasing or tackling him are legitimate, then what were the other options? No matter what other options I bring up, I'm getting the feeling that you're going to tell me why they're not legitimate. So lets hear it from you. If you're not saying shooting was the only option, then what were the other options? 

 

I got the idea the same way you just said that I am saying the only option for the Gardena officers was to shoot the suspect. You do realize there are other items that can be used to kill someone; a gun is not the only deadly weapon out there. A hammer is a common household maintenance tool and you could kill someone pretty easily with a simple hammer. If inmates in prison can kill people with a sharpened plastic toothbrush I'm pretty sure you can kill someone with a screwdriver. I don't make up my own standards and laws; there is already a legal standard as to what makes a shooting justified and that is the standard I go by.

But he didn't have a hammer, or a sharpened toothbrush, or a screwdriver. Those can be weapons when a suspect is approaching them with one of them in their hands, which is not even close to the situation that the officers were put in. So whats the legal standard for killing someone on the street, and how is gunning someone down for taking off his hat (when there are other unarmed suspects behind him), able to fit into that legal definition?

Edited July 30, 201510 yr by Riley24

 

This isn't a thread about the killing of Michael Brown. If we keep bringing up different cases the thread will go on forever. I would be happy to talk about this in a thread dedicated to the topic.

No one is saying every officer is racist. And I didn't ask for the legal definition, I asked for the standard that police use in reality. Unless you think all police use the legal definitions, which would be laughable.

 

So if the reasons for not tasing or tackling him are legitimate, then what were the other options? No matter what other options I bring up, I'm getting the feeling that you're going to tell me why they're not legitimate. So lets hear it from you. If you're not saying shooting was the only option, then what were the other options? 

 

But he didn't have a hammer, or a sharpened toothbrush, or a screwdriver. Those can be weapons when a suspect is approaching them with one of them in their hands, which is not even close to the situation that the officers were put in. So whats the legal standard for killing someone on the street, and how is gunning someone down for taking off his hat (when there are other unarmed suspects behind him), able to fit into that legal definition?

I'm not saying every officer is racist either, I am saying that anytime there is a use of force between a white officer and a black suspect the first "issue" that the media brings up is the race of the officer and suspect even if there is no evidence to suggest that race played a part in the incident. What do the headlines say about the most recent case that came out of Cincinnati? "White officer shoots unarmed black man". Why can't the headlines just say "Cincinnati police officers shoots unarmed man"? Why is race immediately brought into it when not one thing has come out that has even hinted at this being race related?

In reality most police officers go by the legal definition because that is what they are trained by and science has proven that when you are in high stress situations you revert to your training. I'm not saying all police officers use the legal definition but I would say the majority do.

 

Realistically the only other option they had was to continuing giving commands and hope that he decides to start complying. It is a shitty scenario, sometimes your options are limited.

 

I wasn't referring to the Gardena case specifically when I was talking about weapons, I was speaking about the other cases you were referring to where the suspects weren't armed "apart from a common household maintenance tool".

I'm not saying every officer is racist either, I am saying that anytime there is a use of force between a white officer and a black suspect the first "issue" that the media brings up is the race of the officer and suspect even if there is no evidence to suggest that race played a part in the incident. What do the headlines say about the most recent case that came out of Cincinnati? "White officer shoots unarmed black man". Why can't the headlines just say "Cincinnati police officers shoots unarmed man"? Why is race immediately brought into it when not one thing has come out that has even hinted at this being race related?

It is brought up because that's the reality. Why is it that the news doesn't report shootings of Chinese people as such? Because Chinese people are not disproportionately shot, and Chinese communities are not making accusations of racially-charged police violence. Our society has moved past overlooking the race issue, and that's a good thing. Institutional racism didn't end with the Civil Rights movement, and that issue is exemplified in police shootings. They include the race of the victim because Black Americans are disproportionately shot by police, especially when unarmed. That is a fact, and here are the numbers.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis

What makes a shooting of an African American significant isn't whether or not the officer shot the suspect because he was black, its whether or not the situation would have unfolded in the same way if the suspect was white. This is what I've been talking about, a systemic problem. It doesn't fault all or even most officers. A trend can occur without indicting a million officers.

The debate about police violence shouldn't start before acknowledging that fact, it need to start after. When the news reports the race of the victim, its not "race-baiting" or "pushing a narrative", its reporting on a situation using information that we already know to be true. Look, if there was no research or statistics to show the issue that I've been talking about, I wouldn't be so defensive of the news. Journalism is a very flawed industry and I could write a 10 page rant on all of the things they do wrong, but this isn't one of them. Ignoring the race is ignoring the issue, and that's not what good journalism does.

In reality most police officers go by the legal definition because that is what they are trained by and science has proven that when you are in high stress situations you revert to your training. I'm not saying all police officers use the legal definition but I would say the majority do.

 That is why I am saying that the training might be at fault, since as you said, you revert to your training when you are in a high-stress situation. In my opinion, the problem is how we define "justified". It seems like the only criteria is that the officer has to think that a threat exists. Am I wrong? Just look at all the cases that we've been looking at. Not talking about the nation-wide scope of the issue, just these handful of cases where we actually have video evidence. Its definitely a trend.

I think the sample case that the FBI offered as an example of a justified shooting was something like "An officer pulls up to the scene of a bank robbery, and the robber opens fire on the officer. The officer shoots back and kills the robber." That's nowhere near the situation in the cases we're looking at, but yet we still consider them justified. Why? If the suspect isn't a clear and imminent threat, why can an officer end his life? How is it that in other countries, suspects sometimes present a clear and imminent threat to officers but aren't killed? 

Realistically the only other option they had was to continuing giving commands and hope that he decides to start complying. It is a shitty scenario, sometimes your options are limited.

That's the only other option if the officers are not willing to take any further risk. Why aren't you faulting them for not shooting? Wouldn't you rather have them continue to shout orders until they manage to get the kids on the ground so they can handcuff them? 

I wasn't referring to the Gardena case specifically when I was talking about weapons, I was speaking about the other cases you were referring to where the suspects weren't armed "apart from a common household maintenance tool".

The difference between a weapon and a common household maintenance tool is intent. The mentally-ill man in the screwdriver case likely didn't understand who the police were or why they were there, and he likely didn't understand the officers when they ordered him to put the screwdriver down. It is unfair to assume that he kept the screwdriver in his hand to use as a weapon. When dealing with mentally ill suspects, officers shouldn't go so fast to lethal force. That's all I'm saying. I've seen cases where police have shot unarmed naked people, and people that threw a rock at them. The threshold for lethal force seems to be small.

 

It is brought up because that's the reality. Why is it that the news doesn't report shootings of Chinese people as such? Because Chinese people are not disproportionately shot, and Chinese communities are not making accusations of racially-charged police violence. Our society has moved past overlooking the race issue, and that's a good thing. Institutional racism didn't end with the Civil Rights movement, and that issue is exemplified in police shootings. They include the race of the victim because Black Americans are disproportionately shot by police, especially when unarmed. That is a fact, and here are the numbers.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis

What makes a shooting of an African American significant isn't whether or not the officer shot the suspect because he was black, its whether or not the situation would have unfolded in the same way if the suspect was white. This is what I've been talking about, a systemic problem. It doesn't fault all or even most officers. A trend can occur without indicting a million officers.

The debate about police violence shouldn't start before acknowledging that fact, it need to start after. When the news reports the race of the victim, its not "race-baiting" or "pushing a narrative", its reporting on a situation using information that we already know to be true. Look, if there was no research or statistics to show the issue that I've been talking about, I wouldn't be so defensive of the news. Journalism is a very flawed industry and I could write a 10 page rant on all of the things they do wrong, but this isn't one of them. Ignoring the race is ignoring the issue, and that's not what good journalism does.

 That is why I am saying that the training might be at fault, since as you said, you revert to your training when you are in a high-stress situation. In my opinion, the problem is how we define "justified". It seems like the only criteria is that the officer has to think that a threat exists. Am I wrong? Just look at all the cases that we've been looking at. Not talking about the nation-wide scope of the issue, just these handful of cases where we actually have video evidence. Its definitely a trend.

I think the sample case that the FBI offered as an example of a justified shooting was something like "An officer pulls up to the scene of a bank robbery, and the robber opens fire on the officer. The officer shoots back and kills the robber." That's nowhere near the situation in the cases we're looking at, but yet we still consider them justified. Why? If the suspect isn't a clear and imminent threat, why can an officer end his life? How is it that in other countries, suspects sometimes present a clear and imminent threat to officers but aren't killed? 

That's the only other option if the officers are not willing to take any further risk. Why aren't you faulting them for not shooting? Wouldn't you rather have them continue to shout orders until they manage to get the kids on the ground so they can handcuff them? 

The difference between a weapon and a common household maintenance tool is intent. The mentally-ill man in the screwdriver case likely didn't understand who the police were or why they were there, and he likely didn't understand the officers when they ordered him to put the screwdriver down. It is unfair to assume that he kept the screwdriver in his hand to use as a weapon. When dealing with mentally ill suspects, officers shouldn't go so fast to lethal force. That's all I'm saying. I've seen cases where police have shot unarmed naked people, and people that threw a rock at them. The threshold for lethal force seems to be small.

The problem with the way the media reports it as is that it leads people to believe the suspect was shot because they were black. Not to mention why are they only reporting on white officers shooting black suspects? Why not black officers who shoot black suspects? Are black people not capable of being racist?

 

Yes you are wrong, that is not what the criteria for a justified use of deadly force is. I have already went over the definition of justified deadly force and if you want more information on it I will happily point you to legal definitions and case law but I am done arguing it with you. You said you didn't like it and didn't agree with it and that is fine, you can disagree with it but I'm am tired of you twisting the definition to fit your argument.

 

I'm not faulting those officers because in legal terms they were justified in doing what they did. If the law says they are justified then they are justified, simple as that. I already know that you don't like that the law says that and that is fine, there are plenty of laws I don't agree with either.

 

So in the other thread you said I was just making up hypothetical situations and offering explanations based on no evidence yet you are doing the same thing in this situation. How do you know what that man's intent was. Personally, if I see someone holding a screwdriver like that and walking toward me in that manner after being told to drop it multiple times I am not going to wait for him to get to me to find out what his intent is. Yes, he was mentally ill and possibly didn't understand what was going on but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let him attack me. His body language appeared to be aggressive, he wasn't just casually strolling up to the officers.

The problem with the way the media reports it as is that it leads people to believe the suspect was shot because they were black. Not to mention why are they only reporting on white officers shooting black suspects? Why not black officers who shoot black suspects? Are black people not capable of being racist?

Show me one bit of research that has shown that there is a sociological issue of black officers killing black suspects, and I'll be on this very forum discussing it passionately. You're completely missing the point. The problem is that officers, who tend to be white, are disproportionately killing back suspects, who tend to be unarmed. I've already shown you the evidence for that, and there's more online. 

 

Yes you are wrong, that is not what the criteria for a justified use of deadly force is. I have already went over the definition of justified deadly force and if you want more information on it I will happily point you to legal definitions and case law but I am done arguing it with you. You said you didn't like it and didn't agree with it and that is fine, you can disagree with it but I'm am tired of you twisting the definition to fit your argument. 

Ok, so whats the standard? Because there is case after case of unarmed people being killed, and the shootings are considered justified, especially on this forum. So what's the standard?

Either the standard is fairly strict, and departments all across the country are breaking the law and getting away with it, or the standard is fairly lax in which case there's a huge problem on our hands. Which is it?

I'm not faulting those officers because in legal terms they were justified in doing what they did. If the law says they are justified then they are justified, simple as that. I already know that you don't like that the law says that and that is fine, there are plenty of laws I don't agree with either.

 How can you possibly watch a video of four armed men gunning down unarmed people and not think they're at fault? Do you have any amount of empathy?

Show me the laws that show clearly that that's OK, because that doesn't sound like America to me.

So in the other thread you said I was just making up hypothetical situations and offering explanations based on no evidence yet you are doing the same thing in this situation. How do you know what that man's intent was. Personally, if I see someone holding a screwdriver like that and walking toward me in that manner after being told to drop it multiple times I am not going to wait for him to get to me to find out what his intent is. Yes, he was mentally ill and possibly didn't understand what was going on but that doesn't mean that I'm going to let him attack me. His body language appeared to be aggressive, he wasn't just casually strolling up to the officers.

Offering alternative solutions for the living aggressor is different than doing so for the dead victim. Dead people can't explain themselves. 

I get it, in the split second, it makes sense to shoot. But cops can't live every day in the split second. At some point, after however many hundreds or thousands of people are killed, we're going to have to re-think the way we let police gun people down in the streets. The current frequency with which it happens, especially with already disenfranchised communities, is sickening. I understand that there is a fine line between keeping us safe and keeping themselves safe, but they have to be better at walking it. We don't pay them to gun down mentally ill people with screwdrivers that call 911. Again, we can't live in the split second. That's not the way we do things here.

 

Show me one bit of research that has shown that there is a sociological issue of black officers killing black suspects, and I'll be on this very forum discussing it passionately. You're completely missing the point. The problem is that officers, who tend to be white, are disproportionately killing back suspects, who tend to be unarmed. I've already shown you the evidence for that, and there's more online. 

 

Ok, so whats the standard? Because there is case after case of unarmed people being killed, and the shootings are considered justified, especially on this forum. So what's the standard?

Either the standard is fairly strict, and departments all across the country are breaking the law and getting away with it, or the standard is fairly lax in which case there's a huge problem on our hands. Which is it?

 How can you possibly watch a video of four armed men gunning down unarmed people and not think they're at fault? Do you have any amount of empathy?

Show me the laws that show clearly that that's OK, because that doesn't sound like America to me.

Offering alternative solutions for the living aggressor is different than doing so for the dead victim. Dead people can't explain themselves. 

I get it, in the split second, it makes sense to shoot. But cops can't live every day in the split second. At some point, after however many hundreds or thousands of people are killed, we're going to have to re-think the way we let police gun people down in the streets. The current frequency with which it happens, especially with already disenfranchised communities, is sickening. I understand that there is a fine line between keeping us safe and keeping themselves safe, but they have to be better at walking it. We don't pay them to gun down mentally ill people with screwdrivers that call 911. Again, we can't live in the split second. That's not the way we do things here.

The research you have presented includes in custody deaths and taser deaths so not all of them were "gunned down" as you like to say so there are cases, such as Freddie Gray, who died of self-inflicted wounds. Not only that but it fails to provide any evidence that makes the link between black people being shot more and police officers being racist or whatever point it is trying to make. It looks at very generalized data from one year and uses that as its only evidence. Maybe that year there were more black people beating the shit out of police officers, who knows. I could just as easily go pull some numbers from a study and say "look these numbers match the point I'm trying to make" even when I haven't given any context to make a real connection.

 

The standard for deadly force is the person must pose a imminent threat to the officer and/or the people around him (the suspect) and by threat I mean serious bodily injury or death. Deadly force can also be used to stop a fleeing felon if it is believed that allowing the escape of that felon could result in serious bodily injury or death of more people. Some of the case law that supports this (but I already know you won't like) is Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Each state has their own statute that covers deadly force as well. I will give you the Florida state statute since that is the one I am familiar with, Chapter 776.012 and 776.05. I know there is more that is referenced in the state statutes but I don't have a statute book readily available at the moment so I can't reference it right now.

 

Empathy? Empathy is the ability to understand what the other person is feeling, I have never been shot by police and I have not had a family member shot by police. So no, I do not have any empathy, it just isn't possible. Am I sympathetic to the man who was shot and his family? Yes, I feel sorry for them but what does that have to do with law?

 

Do I really have to show you the case law again? I'm pretty sure I have already referenced it many many times in this thread and I have even referenced it two paragraphs up.

 

Really? So it is different if the person is dead? So I can offer explanations for why Michael Brown decided to charge a police officer and try to take his gun and that will make what he did ok simply because he is dead? Do you think police officers like making split second decisions? No, nobody likes making split second decisions but guess what, time doesn't stop for us to think about what we should do. I'm sure every police officer would love to have the ability to say "time out, I want to think through my options give me a minute". I understand that you probably have never been put in such a position so it is hard for you to know what that is like (i.e. empathize) but there are times when all you have is seconds to make these decisions and you have to act fast.

The research you have presented includes in custody deaths and taser deaths so not all of them were "gunned down" as you like to say so there are cases, such as Freddie Gray, who died of self-inflicted wounds.

Oh, so its ok if they beat or tase people to death? That's somehow better? Or if they let someone bounce around int he back of a transport van until their spine severs, that doesn't deserve to be mentioned? "We didn't shoot everyone that we killed" is not a great defense.

 Not only that but it fails to provide any evidence that makes the link between black people being shot more and police officers being racist or whatever point it is trying to make. It looks at very generalized data from one year and uses that as its only evidence. 

The goal of the research isn't to show that link, its to show the reality across the country. We're not talking about whether or not cops are racist, we're talking about a nation-wide systemic issue regarding race and policing. Black suspects are killed disproportionately. Black people are arrested disproportionately for drug offences, and are stopped disproportionately during "Stop and Frisk" situations. We're not calling cops racist, we're simply connecting the dots.

A woman on an elevator might clutch her purse when a black person gets on, what makes you so sure that police officers in historically racist regions won't reach for their weapon faster? 

Maybe that year there were more black people beating the shit out of police officers, who knows. I could just as easily go pull some numbers from a study and say "look these numbers match the point I'm trying to make" even when I haven't given any context to make a real connection.

"look these numbers match the point I'm trying to make" is called providing evidence.

And I'm sure you would love to believe that there was a spike in black people beating the shit out of police officers, but there's no evidence that suggests that. In fact, police shootings continue to rise as violent crime drops. But maybe that's just me using numbers to match my point again.

The standard for deadly force is the person must pose a imminent threat to the officer and/or the people around him (the suspect) and by threat I mean serious bodily injury or death. Deadly force can also be used to stop a fleeing felon if it is believed that allowing the escape of that felon could result in serious bodily injury or death of more people. Some of the case law that supports this (but I already know you won't like) is Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. Each state has their own statute that covers deadly force as well. I will give you the Florida state statute since that is the one I am familiar with, Chapter 776.012 and 776.05. I know there is more that is referenced in the state statutes but I don't have a statute book readily available at the moment so I can't reference it right now.

 The problem is that in a lot of these situations, the suspect did not in any way pose an imminent threat, but a threat was falsely perceived by officers. Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino. 

Empathy? Empathy is the ability to understand what the other person is feeling, I have never been shot by police and I have not had a family member shot by police. So no, I do not have any empathy, it just isn't possible. Am I sympathetic to the man who was shot and his family? Yes, I feel sorry for them but what does that have to do with law

 Empathy is the capacity to understand what someone else is feeling. When you watch people die and have no reaction, that's a little scary. You don't have to live through something yourself to have empathy for someone who is.

Really? So it is different if the person is dead? So I can offer explanations for why Michael Brown decided to charge a police officer and try to take his gun and that will make what he did ok simply because he is dead? Do you think police officers like making split second decisions? No, nobody likes making split second decisions but guess what, time doesn't stop for us to think about what we should do. I'm sure every police officer would love to have the ability to say "time out, I want to think through my options give me a minute". I understand that you probably have never been put in such a position so it is hard for you to know what that is like (i.e. empathize) but there are times when all you have is seconds to make these decisions and you have to act fast.

You're aware that dead people can't talk, right? When there are gaps in scientific evidence, first-hand accounts are used to understand the bigger pictures. When people start shooting, the only ones that are left to tell the story of what happened are the survivors. Explaining Michael Brown's actions to make the case for an officer is not offering alternative solutions, its blaming the victim. When someone is gunned down in their driveway, they're not exactly around to explain why they didn't put down a screwdriver. 

And I get it, cops have a tough job. But if they continuously make split-second decisions with devastating results, it is well within our rights as Americans to demand them to be better. I fully understand the difficulty of split second decisions, but there's always a step too far. And when you watch unarmed person after unarmed person being gunned down in the street, its perfectly reasonable to examine police culture and training, because they definitely can contribute to an officer's willingness to kill.

 

Oh, so its ok if they beat or tase people to death? That's somehow better? Or if they let someone bounce around int he back of a transport van until their spine severs, that doesn't deserve to be mentioned? "We didn't shoot everyone that we killed" is not a great defense.

The goal of the research isn't to show that link, its to show the reality across the country. We're not talking about whether or not cops are racist, we're talking about a nation-wide systemic issue regarding race and policing. Black suspects are killed disproportionately. Black people are arrested disproportionately for drug offences, and are stopped disproportionately during "Stop and Frisk" situations. We're not calling cops racist, we're simply connecting the dots.

A woman on an elevator might clutch her purse when a black person gets on, what makes you so sure that police officers in historically racist regions won't reach for their weapon faster? 

"look these numbers match the point I'm trying to make" is called providing evidence.

And I'm sure you would love to believe that there was a spike in black people beating the shit out of police officers, but there's no evidence that suggests that. In fact, police shootings continue to rise as violent crime drops. But maybe that's just me using numbers to match my point again.

 The problem is that in a lot of these situations, the suspect did not in any way pose an imminent threat, but a threat was falsely perceived by officers. Tamir Rice, John Crawford, Ricardo Diaz Zeferino. 

 Empathy is the capacity to understand what someone else is feeling. When you watch people die and have no reaction, that's a little scary. You don't have to live through something yourself to have empathy for someone who is.

You're aware that dead people can't talk, right? When there are gaps in scientific evidence, first-hand accounts are used to understand the bigger pictures. When people start shooting, the only ones that are left to tell the story of what happened are the survivors. Explaining Michael Brown's actions to make the case for an officer is not offering alternative solutions, its blaming the victim. When someone is gunned down in their driveway, they're not exactly around to explain why they didn't put down a screwdriver. 

And I get it, cops have a tough job. But if they continuously make split-second decisions with devastating results, it is well within our rights as Americans to demand them to be better. I fully understand the difficulty of split second decisions, but there's always a step too far. And when you watch unarmed person after unarmed person being gunned down in the street, its perfectly reasonable to examine police culture and training, because they definitely can contribute to an officer's willingness to kill.

I'm done with this conversation, I'm done with the twisting of what I said. You are constantly taking things out of context and I'm tired of having to constantly come back and correct you on it. If someone dies due to self inflicted wounds or from being tased did were the police trying to kill that person? Were they using deadly force? No, the fact that someone dies after being tased is a freak accident and the officer isn't to blame for that.

And what I said about the numbers was taken out of context as well. The numbers don't provide any links. If the numbers don't have any context to them then what is it proving?

Frankly the amount of times you use what I say out of context or twist the meaning of it is starting to annoy me, so I have no desire to continue this debate.

To give my two cents to this conversation is, that it strikes me, how little LEOs in the United States recieve basic training. You can't expect recruits to go through a 6 month training to make them ready for police duty! In other countries, especially in Europe you get at least 2 years of studing and training to be fit as a police officers. With this little basic training, it is understandable, that LEOs in the U.S. do not master the communication skills or self defense techniques as opposed to other countries. That also increases the chances of police officers misbehaving, just because they lack knowledge and or are just not professional enough to handle the situation! Of course this can't be applicated to every departement in the States, but the difference for me as a foreigner is visual nontheless!

Edited August 11, 201510 yr by Coltsmith

I'm done with this conversation, I'm done with the twisting of what I said. You are constantly taking things out of context and I'm tired of having to constantly come back and correct you on it. If someone dies due to self inflicted wounds or from being tased did were the police trying to kill that person? Were they using deadly force? No, the fact that someone dies after being tased is a freak accident and the officer isn't to blame for that.

 

And what I said about the numbers was taken out of context as well. The numbers don't provide any links. If the numbers don't have any context to them then what is it proving?

Frankly the amount of times you use what I say out of context or twist the meaning of it is starting to annoy me, so I have no desire to continue this debate.

How exactly have I been twisting your words? What you've been saying has included implications that you haven't refuted. 

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)

You state "in sight of recent events" I can't help but think that this statement is media driven. For those that rely on new articles to be the ONLY source of information that may be what "recent events" look like but these kinds of events happen daily and in large numbers. 

 

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

I agree that our law enforcement needs to be equal if not greater to the threats that modern day criminals create. I feel as though the militarization of law enforcement is a response to terrorism more than anything. With huge events like 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing I think the threats of terrorism among the general population are greater than even and our law enforcement officers need to be able to have a tactical advantage in every and all situations that call for it.

 

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

I feel as though transparency is key in terms of investigations pertaining to police brutality. In regards to whether or not there is education on policing I feel as though it is the job of Law Enforcement Departments to out reach their communities in events to build trust and relationships with people.