DivineHustle

Under this philosophy, those same individuals that hold law enforcement to a higher standard should automatically presume that law enforcement shootings are justified until further evidence surfaces proving otherwise. To me, it's illogical to hold law enforcement to a high standard but then automatically assume that they're guilty, or be more likely to declare them guilty before facts and evidence actually release to the public. If we're going to hold the Police to a higher standard, then we should be on their side unless evidence says otherwise. I don't want to see people saying "Oh, another trigger-happy cop". Because those high standards imply that the Police are usually justified in their decisions.

I don't believe that the issue is that residents fear being targeted for calling the Police. There's just simply a disconnect between the impoverished neighborhoods (usually black neighborhoods) and law enforcement within Baltimore City. Baltimore City Police are well-known for their corruption and mistreatment of residents, and I've experienced and witnessed it first-hand during my visits. I've witnessed groups of Police officers literally walk down the sidewalk with nightsticks and verbally threaten and harass people in ghetto neighborhoods. Response times are also terrible depending on where they're called to respond. Baltimore Police will literally show up to an area, do a few laps around the block, and roll out. Nowhere to be seen until called back again. But God forbid they get a call down at the harbor or in a high-income neighborhood, they'll be all over that in a heartbeat. They don't treat you with respect either. They use profane and vulgar language, they handle people aggressively, and they're disrespectful. You can also see the lack of interest when they're called and the manner in which they conduct their "investigations", which usually consists of a few laps around the block and then leaving, or posting up in an alley and falling asleep; all of which I've witnessed personally. It's also convenient how during the riots, the media didn't report the fact that the National Guard was only posted down at the harbor and the higher-income neighborhoods. They barely got into the ghetto's, which is where most of the rioting actually took place. Baltimore City is also short hundreds of officers and they've been short for the past few years. This has led to the rapid-employment of low-qualified officers that don't care about their jobs and only want the paycheck, which isn't even that good to begin with. Baltimore City Police officers are underpaid, under-equipped, poorly trained, and they have little respect from the residents as it is due to their rampant corruption. I encourage you all to conduct some research on the failed Gun Trace Task Force that the City created in an attempt to fight gun violence, which was shut down due to the corruption that tainted thousands of cases. All of this combined with a horrendous education system where parents are neglecting their children's education, careless teachers, and standards so low that students who actually do excel don't even compare to the rest of the country by a long shot. A lot of those schools still use chalkboards and some of the kids even take the public buses to and from school. A kid has no support at home, no encouragement at school, and no trust in the Police. Why wouldn't the kid join a gang? When I stayed in Baltimore for a few days with family and tried to order pizza, a lot of the pizzerias said that they didn't deliver to my address but delivered to an address two or three blocks down, because Baltimore is designed in such a way that one road can lead you from a high-income neighborhood directly into a ghetto. When I was finally able to have some random "Mom and Pap" pizzeria deliver, the driver asked me where I was from once he heard me speak. I told him that I'm not from Baltimore and that I was from another state. He said that I spoke very clearly, with proper English, and complete sentences with a good vocabulary. He told me that it was good, and to stay in school (which I was in high school at the time). How is it that me speaking regularly with proper English baffled someone? That's how bad it is in Baltimore. Baltimore isn't a lost cause like Detroit for example, but it definitely needs change. It's a beautiful city that has its share of problems, but it isn't anything that can't be fixed.

Can always resume production of this beauty:

That's not how it works when it comes to this. A larger police department doesn't automatically mean more police deaths the same way that a larger country would mean more deaths.

It appears as though California has some of the highest police officer deaths in the country. Hmmmmm..... http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/state.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/u-s-states-with-the-most-police-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty.html

Passing legislation such as this will probably deter officers from shooting altogether. You believe that saving a life is considered necessary force, but to what extent can the force be taken to? That's where the hesitation will probably come into play when an officer has to decide on pulling the trigger. The bill will not change anything, period. The intentions are good, but I'd refer you back to what @Black Jesus posted. It's only a move to give society a feeling of progression within the system. It's quite obvious why Police in the US are quicker to pull the trigger in comparison to other countries. They die at alarmingly higher rates here in the US than other "civilized" countries, and they're more likely to be shot at. Sometimes it takes an entire magazine to neutralize your target. This isn't a video game where one or two shots equals a death.

This legislation can be the difference between an officer firing to save his/her life and the life of another person, or holding back in fear of legal repercussions and being killed or allowing someone else to be killed. I can't speak on behalf of any LEO's that we may have here, but I don't think this is something that would help make the decision to pull the trigger any easier for officers. It would certainly deter a lot of officers from working under such micro-managed circumstances. Officers in California probably expect this type of crap regardless, so I don't think they'll lose anybody.

You can pass as much legislation as you like, but you can't force people to work under it.

I am a bigot towards people that are statistically harmful to my country, that is absolutely correct.

I took his point completely different. I saw it as people supporting individuals/groups that’ll only end up harming them anyways. A protest supporting bridges over walls while people were run down and murdered by someone let in on the “bridge”, metaphorically speaking. On top of what the others have said, you can’t force people to become law enforcement officers.

Friend, you made the following general statement: If you were referring specifically to the United Kingdom, then that's my fault and I apologize for taking your comment out of context. I saw that as being a general statement.

I laughed out loud. Nothing but sheer lack of knowledge with this entire statement. I'd like you to come to the United States and live in some of the remote areas of this country. You know, where Police can have upwards of 45 minutes to an hour response time. Americans support the Police, but we're smart enough not to place one-hundred percent dependency on them. Also, I don't know a single firearms owner that doesn't regularly visit the range and conduct maintenance on their weapons. You don't just purchase a gun, lock it up in a cage, and then one day you're miraculously some sort of superhero when you've got to use it.

Well, obviously it's not a win for him because he's dead. That's his own problem, society will continue to move forward without him. I'm just glad that the officer is safe and no other innocent person was harmed. I encourage you to do exactly that, and the second you pull the trigger on someone you'll know exactly how these officers feel nowadays. I support the Police, and so does America. I encourage you to come apply for Baltimore City Police Department. Under that logic, nothing is a reliable source for anything. I'll patiently wait for you to provide me with some better sources. Yes. If you run towards me I will shoot you, and I'll shoot you even as a regular civilian and not a law enforcement officer. Does that mean that it was the best option? No, but I don't care about the best option. I care about my safety. That's why I'll never become a Police officer. They can't even defend themselves without people behind computer screens criticizing and generalizing their actions. If a man is walking towards me in a threatening manner, then I would use whatever other tools I have available. It all really depends on the exact circumstances, because I hope you realize that some departments don't have tasers.

Makes sense considering that more Police officers are dying in America than US Soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq per year. 2016 also saw an increase in the number of Police killed. As long as my law enforcement officers are safe and the general public is safe, I'd call it a win. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-killed-line-of-duty-increase-2016/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/29/police-officer-shooting-deaths-on-rise-in-2016-ami/ http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/05/police-officer-deaths-on-duty-have-jumped-nearly-25-percent-in-2017.html http://www.newsweek.com/police-line-duty-deaths-increase-2017-636064 http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByYear.aspx Actually, Americans increasingly support the Police. Respect for Police has actually reached it's highest in American history. http://news.gallup.com/poll/196610/americans-respect-police-surges.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/192701/confidence-police-recovers-last-year-low.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=tile_4&g_campaign=item_196610&g_content=U.S.%20Confidence%20in%20Police%20Recovers%20From%20Last%20Year's%20Low I don't quite understand how him using lethal force makes him a coward. I know that I certainly won't be in mourning.

No, we're basing majority and minority off of statistics. I'll refer you to the charts that I've posted earlier in the thread. Also, those that have liked your stuff are typically the same people that like everything that goes against what I'm saying in any debate and have been for years. I'm still patiently awaiting my Quran interpretations of how the commands to slaughter aren't actually violent. The proof is in the pudding. We've presented verses of the Quran that state exactly this. Commands to slaughter the non-believers and commands to literally terrorize the infidels. Have you ever read the Quran, Ben?

Don't understand why such a minority of people don't understand the concept, because they are a minority.

Is the KKK still a threat? The Ku Klux Klan still “poses a threat to society,” though it is relatively unstable and unorganized, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The findings of an ADL report released this week found that 42 KKK groups are active in 33 states, with an estimate of some 3,000 members. https://www.bing.com/search?q=is+the+kkk+still+a+threat&PC=U316&FORM=CHROMN In other words, my clogged toilet is more of a threat to me, as a black man, than the KKK. You're not understanding the concept man. Christians that kill others in the name of God are ignorant and directly contradicting the word of God. Muslims that kill in the name of Allah are only doing what they've been commanded to do as per their beloved Quran. It's not the same thing.

So do you believe that Islam is currently a threat to global peace?

Islam is a religion and a form of government, that is fact. Whether you believe that Islam is violent or should be banned is an opinion, but it is a fact that Islam is a controlling ideology, with the implication that it is to essentially act as a form of government over its followers. It's in the name, actually. "Sharia Law". If you knew a little more about Islam, you would know this; which is also why you're more tolerant of Islam. Because those that know least about Islam tend to be more tolerant towards it, which makes perfect sense. I'm not attacking you, just making observations based on statistics and what I've read throughout this debate. I'm also still awaiting my Quran verses and their contextual meanings. That'd be because Islam is what's motivating people to do the violent, human rights violating actions. It wouldn't make any sense to ban Christianity. The most dangerous terrorists on the planet by far are Muslim extremists, not Christians. I don't believe that a ban on Islam would be unconstitutional because Islam unconstitutionally prohibits free-will. I find that people who show more favorable opinions of Islam seem to know least about Islam, which is also a statistical fact.

....under the implication that the specified religion doesn't impede on the freedoms of other Americans, in which Islam does.

If that's the conclusion that you've come to, then that's fine. Your point isn't valid at all, it's completely wrong. It's off-topic and it will lead to a debate on the validity and theological concept/philosophy of Christianity. I'm not here to debate my religion or argue with you on something that you clearly don't understand. That's not why I'm participating in this discussion. So, no, I will not partake in that argument because it's an argument for a completely different discussion. I'm also still waiting for some responses from you and a few others since we're going to get nit-picky about the debate. @c13 also never received responses to a few of his questions. I want to prevent people from practicing a religion that calls for Sharia Law, and removing the freedoms of others, even if it hasn't been enacted at this time, yes. Because, if you weren't aware, Islam and Christianity are two different religions. You also continue to pull scripture from the Old Testament, which is before the resurrection of Jesus Christ and before he forgave us for our sins; which freed us from having to suffer the consequences set forth in the Old Testament to sin, such as stoning. That's where the whole, "Jesus is the savior" thing comes in. He saved us by dying on the cross so that we can ask God for forgiveness when we sin, rather than face his wrath. That's why I say there's context to the scripture of the Bible verses the scripture of the Quran. You're making it very clear that you have very little knowledge of both the Quran and the Bible, as well as the theology associated with both respective religions. Can you provide me with the violent verses of the Quran and explain what exactly they mean, as I've done with the Bible? I'll patiently wait.

I believe that God gives us freedom, and the government cannot impede on it.

Christian.

I don't quite understand how the context can be any different. It seems like a rather straight-forward command from Allah. I would say it is, and the founding fathers of this country would also agree, evidently. Freedom is an amazing thing, it's truly beautiful.